Jump to content

Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Archive page for pre mid-2006 F-22 Raptor talk.

Still can’t see any criticism

Even if this plane had a number of incidents (crash, canopy stuck etc…), huge development and maintainance costs.

Controversy is well documented.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/11/f22-raptor-fy-2006-procurement-events-updated/index.php#controversies

The F-22 — Not What We Were Hoping For. By The Defense Monitor, November/December 2006, USA. http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/DM_NovDec06.pdf

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.242.9.68 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Will someone please add borders to table on the right. It's hideous.

Now that the Raptor is in production, I've removed the YF-22 prototype specs from the page. If someone's interested, they should be made into a separate entry for the YF-22. --Markonen

This is still work in progress. Feel free to edit. I need my bed for now:-) WojPob, 31.07.02, 22:40 CET

Wow, that was fast :) I just discovered Wikipedia today, and the F-22 was the first thing I thought I'd contribute on. I added some specs. ppetru, 01.08.02, 00:34 EEST

Hey, will you write anything on thrust vectoring? I don't have much in mind besides "well, the nozzles move" :) and I think it would be an interesting subject if you have some technical explanation. I can make a list of fighters that support it, starting with that first Sukhoi.

Ppetru

I'll do some research on it and see what I can find - WojPob

F-22 cost

A recent aviationnow article places the cost at about $91 million. I think there needs to be some note in this wiki article of the nuances of military (particularly air force) equipment procurement costs mnemonic 12:33, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)

The figure in that article does not account for R&D costs, which have already been paid for and is not a small amount. -jph 14:30, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)
...which emphasizes my point regarding USAF cost quotes. who's up for a dedicated USAF aircraft procurement cost article? i think it's a very complex issue deserving of a thorough explanation. mnemonic 01:04, 2004 Jul 18 (UTC)

This sentence in the "Procurement" section seems to be missing a subject: "In 2005, for the fiscal year 2006, under further DoD cost cutting measures, is forecasting the number of aircraft procured at 180 saving an additional $15 billion but raising the per unit cost." I would have fixed it up if I knew what it was supposed to mean. Pete 03:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What i find missing in the debate about costs, is that the Raptor is a prime example of iron triangle politics. Mentioning this is like blasphemy to some people, but iron triangle politics are everyday business in the pentagon. An excellent book about this, even though somewhat outdated, is "The power game" by Hedrick Smith. It describes the decision process and the resulting skyrocketing costs for a few 80ies weapon systems such as the B-1 and the navy's aegis cruisers. It's still standard procedure in Washington to promise heaven at a bargain to get a weapon program started, and then start to expand (gold-plate) it as much as possible, and make it politically unstoppable in the process by spreading subcontractors neatly over congressional districts. Once a program is on its way, no air force officer can critize it without risking his career. This is precicely what the air force colonel who's mentioned in the external links did. The real value of his critisism lies in it's independence. Don't forget that the Raptor is what it is because of political decisions(or the lack thereoff), so my remarks are not political reflections on technical decisions but rather the other way around. I recommend that a section about this would be added to the article, as it was a defining factor about the F-22---karelke---

Find a citable source for it and we will. --Mmx1 03:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The current Unit cost in 2006 for the F-22A is at $120.088 million per aircraft, as shown on page 65 of this document --> https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/FMB/pb/2007/afprocurement/3010_Aircraft_Procurement_v1_FY07_PB.pdf The per unit cost in 2005 was $127.798 million per aircraft. Zeroyon 08:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

F/A-22 vs F-22

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1409158.php The USAF dropped the A designator from the F-22. Its officaly the F-22A, being F-22 model A.

Stealth System

The stealth system on the F/A-22 is pretty simple. What it does it absorb radio waves and act as an antenna to a radio. It is covered with a substance (most likely graphite and epxoy) that absorb them. Those that are not absorbed are put into random directions by saw like edges that are very small. It acts as a radio antenna by catching radio waves and altering there direction. This also explains the w shape of the B-2 Spirit bomber. Another thing it does is that its two rudders are tilted so that when radio waves hit them the ones that arent absorbed are sent to the other wing just like a satellite focuser. The F/A-22 also has its bottum wings bent ever so slightly so it can do this and keep aerodynamics. It also probably has about 4-8 Radio jammers on its bottum to keep people that see it from reporting it... or so it can kill them before they do But dont think the F/A-22 is invincible because its far from. Ive already discovered and developed a radar system that can show an F/A-22, a F-117, and a B-2 bomber at there full size. it works with a frequency that can not be altered by an antenna actualy this frequency is in the catogory of microwaves and burned a hole in my wall when i first tested it. Plus i developed a pistol that would shut down any plane with an E.M.P and then magnetize a steel projectile that is flung at the craft, it is magnetized to a certain degree where it will "seek" a fighters engine and go down the shaft. When i tested this I made a mini without a projectile and it shut down my computer for about a week and erased all my info, luckily i had a paper copy of the stuff. Another side effect of the E.M.P is that it infected my computer with a virus, which was not fun when it finally turned back on. I've figured out a lot more than this but if I told the FBI and the Air Force would be pretty mad. So dont think ive told you everything and go do something like try to shoot an F/A-22 down cause I wouldnt give that info out on the internet unless I was paid to. Daniel Glisson

Your observations are interesting, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish your original research. See Wikipedia:No original research. Good luck with your experimentation.--Robert Merkel 00:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

They are unconventional exhausts - they obscure the view of the turbine blades which are exposed in most aircraft (including the F-35), which are perpendicular to the X-Y axis and a huge RCS factor. Moreover, just because you don't see metal doesn't mean it isn't there. The only difference between the gray and shiny parts are the RCS paint (which I'm assuming isn't heat-resistant enough). It's still oriented so that you won't get a significant return off of it except directly from the top or underside. --Mmx1 03:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What I don't get is how an EM pulse would put a virus on a computer. Surely that's like getting cancer from a gunshot wound? I think someone might be telling porkie pies.

i like that "cancer from a gunshot wound" comment...that's pretty good. but yeah, dan apparently has no idea what he's talking about. 4-8 radio jammers? that essentially negates the whole stealth design. as for the emp, it's not a directional weapon. and how do you magnetize a piece of metal to "seek" a certain piece of an aircraft? Parsecboy 20:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

its actualy very simple. Take binary code oioioioioioioiioioioioioioioioiioiiioiioooiiooi this is a fragment of binary code. It is controlled by magnetism. however if there is a program saved and an emp hits the it will rupture the binary code. thusfore making norton think its a virus. But if norton gets ruptured pending on where its ruptured then it can go haywire. thusfore creating Terminator 3 like program that kills everything. The computer was an e-machine and generaly a piece of crap.

Yeah it was becoming slightly believable until he said a week long virus that survived after having his programing completly wiped from shooting an EMP pulse at his computer. Drew1369 15:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It already had viruses because it was a crap computer and realy slow so it just may have survived from th EMP but i only have theories on why it had a virus if you could shed light on this i would be much appreciative because i realy have no idea why it had a virus. i know why it erased everything because the hard drive is written using a magnet and it was an electro magnetic pulse but why would it still have a virus wouldn't it erase that to? Daniel Glisson

I have an idea. I'm going to do this again except this time as a controlled experiment. I will take two crappy computers. One infected with viruses one that does not have viruses. I will put a magnetism detector inbetween them. I will place them 5 yards away from an emp. This time i will use nitroglycerin. This will make the EMP stronger. Then i will see what happens. If you see any flaws in this experiment please tell me before i waste money on it. I will wait 30 Days before i do this so please tell me before then. the date is 11/8/06 I will video tape this experiment. Daniel Glisson

Then are you going to misspell more words? RMelon 18:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Data sources

Could somebody please cite sources on the specifications listed here? A lot of the real data is classified, so it would be good to know what the source of the guesswork/leaks are. this highly critical report (PDF), by a bloke who was reputedly high-up in the F-16 program, implies that the figures quoted are optimistic in some cases. --Robert Merkel 23:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

That report is a bit... odd. The author grasps at straws (or misunderstands the subject) when he says the aircraft's stealth is a failure. Sonic booms only provide auditory detection clues, not tracking information. "Netted computers can track its sound" well yes, but to my knowledge no such systems exist, and there'd be a host of interference problems to handle. With the heat signature, IRST is still not reliable for ranging information and is all but useless at high aspect angles because the engine plume is obscured. The visibility of APG-77's LPI emissions is highly debatable, but the F-22 can use datalink and passive RWR tracking (it has been confirmed) for guiding weapons instead (leaving the radar silent). He brings up the hackneyed "21 B-2's" example, but doesn't mention the debunking; after the unit procurement reduction, Northrop drastically raised the unit cost (as every company does with changing purchase quantities). He misnames the B-52 as the "Stratobomber," which damages his "expertise" further. Then he claims that T/W and wing loading are the only measures of fighter maneuverability, ignoring things like drag (of any type), thrust vectoring, fly-by-wire etc. He's flat-out wrong when he says the F-15C and the F-22 carry the same weapons. And he misunderstands sensor fusion because he fails to realize that the software provides the upgrade-potential and flexibility of the system, not the hardware.
Anyways, I could go on but the man's just wrong. Yes, accurate sources are an important part of military equipment analysis. I've read everything from Jane's (British) to International Air Power Review (American) to official USAF advertised values. Everything in this article I've read is reasonably accurate, but performance values for any aircraft are endlessly debatable. This guy has a bone to pick with the F-22, and he's shaped his entire understanding around that. He is not a reliable source, because of his "facts" and because of his agenda. ✈ James C. 02:33, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
P.S. And oh my god... he states that the F-22 -> F/A-22 re-designation marked an actual design change of the aircraft. It seems he confused it with the YF-22 -> F-22 revisions. This guy is ridiculous.
Can't we find something more credible than this if we want to cite criticism of the Raptor? -RedMageCWD 00:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Can't we find anything better then attacking the credibility of F-22 critics? "this bloke" is a retired air force colonel, but everything he says about the raptor is not credible because he misstates the name of the B-52? If i would want to attack this kind of credibility attacks on F-22 critics, i could also very easily arrive at the conclusion that "anyways, i could go on but the man's just wrong". 'The man' in this case being the author of the above article. oops i forgot to use caps, does this make my statement invalid?

  • Col. Riccioni was never on the F-22 program (much less "high up" in it); the whole program is antithetical to his philosophy. Riccioni was one of the key players in the "Fighter Mafia" who pressed for an aircraft design approach that resulted in the F-16. He was once respected as someone who "got it" on what fighter design should be, but if this article is any indication, he's "lost it" in a fanatical sense. Even if everything he wrote here were demonstrable fact, I couldn't honestly use this article - a tirade, really - as a reference. Anything with such a high boldfaced-italics-to-plain-text ratio, footnotes that mostly refer to his own work or anonymous "confirmations," and a tremendous conglomeration of unfootnoted assertions expressed with religious fervor must come across as a screed, not a sober analysis. Nor are his some of his "facts" correct even when they're easily checked without resort to classified data. (E.g., "Yet, curiously, Lockheed sought license to sell the F–22 abroad — and it was granted!" Not only has such a license not been granted, it is currently against federal law to export it!) However many of his criticisms may be on target, his presentation seriously detracts from his credibility. Askari Mark | Talk 04:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The Defense Monitor article makes some of the same criticisms, that adding "stealth technology" created an F-22 with the same flight characteristics as an F-15: namely, Mach 2.5, 60,000 ceiling, 3,000 mile range, 8 missiles, etc. The religious debate is whether stealth=BLUE or stealth=BLACK (visual vs radar invisibility). As far as I can tell, the USAF chose to make the F-22 a "stealth black" prototype (super F-15) over a "stealth blue" UFO-like ultimate dogfighter. Both are uncharted research territory, but I can see his point that for $70b program costs, we might want to focus on aerodynamics, speed, and maneuverability, rather than radar signature, for a fighter that still relies on ~90% visual kills. After all, if we had real standoff capability in the air, we wouldn't bother to make fighters in the first place. -broodlinger 24.184.67.122 22:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

F-22 criticism

Shouldn't this article mention the debate that was/is raging over the usefullness of the F-22 in contemporary times?The whole relic of the cold war thing?--Technosphere83 14:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, if you can find some appropriate sources to quote. --Robert Merkel 22:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm,I'll look when I have the time,it just that it was a pretty hot topic a while ago,but I guess this happens everytime a new fighter comes along.--Technosphere83 22:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Here : "The story of the gold-plated F-22 fighter just gets worse with every financial analysis," said POGO Senior Defense Investigator Eric Miller. "We hope that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld will finally say 'enough is enough' and pull the plug on this overpriced and unneeded Cold War relic."

http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/da-030301-f22.html

This one also mentions the critics :

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/e19990722need.htm

more : http://www.cdi.org/adm/639/

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1076 --Technosphere83 22:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed section

I removed the section entitled Performance Notes from Simulator Testing in X-Plane 8.21, which had the following content:

  • The F-22 can exceed Mach 2.2 with afterburner. Mach 1.72 is the accurate with supercruise at 40,000-50,000 feet, but it is more Mach 1.5 at low altitude.
  • The engines definitally are at their most efficient between Mach 1.4 and 1.6 at high altitude.
  • 65,000-70,000 feet can be sustained if ascending carefully and never going below Mach 1.2. Max altitude subsonic is more 60,000 feet. I've climbed to over 90,000 feet, but it obviously cannot sustain that altitude.
  • It flies from Miami, FL to Lima, Peru with 25,000 pounds of fuel and no in-flight refueling. It was done at high altitude (>60,000 feet) at Mach 1.5-1.65 without afterburner.
  • The F-22 can fly, stay on course with a lot of effort, but not take off or land, in X-Plane's worst possible weather conditions - 200 knots, level 9 turbulence, 50 knot and 180 degree wind sheer.
  • Some of this stuff may still be classified, but it was analytically reverse engineered with X-Plane by Laminar Research, which is public and affordable by individuals, but is used as the simulation software in Motus full motion simulators certified to train commercial pilots! Look in in the Total Flight Immersion Section for the references to Laminar Research.

Personally, I think your experiments sound like reasonable guesswork, but it's definitely original research which is banned by our policy at Wikipedia:no original research. Sorry. Research has to be published elsewhere before including it. In any case, Barry doesn't explain how he came up with his aircraft model; without that information it's not all that useful. How the hell does he know that the engines actually have the capabilities he's ascribed to them, for instance? --Robert Merkel 02:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. :) E Pluribus Anthony 08:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
To me it sounds like he took a flightsim, added the airplane and tested it, but without knowing anything as to how the creator of the plane had decided on the aerodynamics of the plane. For all we know, the addon might be pure guesswork... Bjelleklang 14:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
One of X-Plane's claims to fame (as opposed to, say, Microsoft Flight Simulator) is that the flight dynamics of its aircraft are based on the actual properties of the airframe (aerodynamics, etc). Sort of a "virtual wind tunnel." So with X-Plane, you put the design in the sim and the sim tells you how it should fly, whereas in MSFS or others, you put the plane in the sim and tell the sim how it should fly. Nevertheless, this is original research and thus not appropriate. -RedMageCWD 00:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Performance

Different Sources show different preformacne.

  • Book A = Mach 2.2
  • Book B = Mach 1.8
  • Source A = Mach 1.8
  • Source B = Mach 2.5
  • Source C = Mach 2.7

Why is that? Which source is correct? I say that i think the manafacturer preformance is correct. Irfanfaiz 13:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

(Mach 1.8 = too heavy i think)

I spoke with a Raptor test pilot at the Edwards AFB air show a few years ago. He said that he had no trouble breaking Mach 2. However, he would not give me an exact top speed. Also, the Raptor can supercruise at Mach 1.7 at least, per this quote from Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John P. Jumper

“Today I flew the Raptor at speeds exceeding (Mach 1.7) without afterburners,” General Jumper said. “To be able to go that fast without afterburners means that nobody can get you in their sights or get a lock-on. The aircraft’s impressive stealth capability, combined with its super cruise (capability), will give any adversary a very hard time.” (Courtesy of Air Education and Training Command News Service)"

Considering the importance of speed in a modern fighter jet, it's good that the speed of the f22 is discussed in the article, and I believe that discussion can be expanded into it's own section, with a note such as "see above discussion" at the speed listed in the specifications section. //Azninja

I think it's unlikely that the F-22's is slower than the F-15 (mach 2.54). The supercruise engines and large wing surfaces suggest an improvement in speed. I say "suggest" because our sources appear to be classified. 24.184.67.122 21:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Speed

The correct speed is mach 2.2. i know this because i was inside lockheed martin while they where making them. I asked the designer how fast they could go and he said. " The F-22 has an airspeed capability of mach 2.2"

If you were inside Lockhead Martin while they were developing it then you would know that you just gave out clasified information and could be charged for giving out national secrets that would put you in jail for a very long time. Drew1369 15:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

i know a bunch of stuff that was classified because i went with some boy scouts on a trip to lockheed martin. This was before 9/11 i also saw a barrel of chloroflouro something. i know it wasn't chloroflourocarbons.

id be glad to answer questions if you've got them

Daniel Glisson

Sorry, but we can't use that directly in the article, or anything you learned from such an excursion. It's annoying because there's not that much information about the new generation fighters that isn't hearsay or rumor, but we really need to stick to verifiable sources. If you published an article in Jane's saying so, then we could quote that... --Robert Merkel 02:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


On another note, I've seen a quote from an F-22 driver saying "Well, it can beat the F-15 in a foot race" and furthermore "Let me just say this: it's the fastest thing we have flying right now." Any help with this?

Find an external link for this, we can't publish on the grounds that you have "seen a quote." A website or news source is good. --The1exile 13:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That would be exactly why I asked "any help with this?" That is, if anyone else had seen things to that effect.

Everybody knows this "Daniel Glisson" is full of sh*t, right? RMelon 18:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Naming of this article

The naming of this article is by now too old, as the plane was changed from F-22 to F/A 22 a long while ago. Refer to www.globalsecurity.org (having trouble external linkling that one; copy and paste works just fine) for sourcing, but I do not have the time to trawl through the many articles on the F/A-22 to find the specific one that mentions the change of designation. However, if you want a PDF that refers repeatedly to the F/A 22 then see [1] --The1exile 22:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Reportedly, the designation was recently changed back to F-22, so that should hold. E Pluribus Anthony 22:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
If this is the case, then someone should clear up the references to F/A 22 in the popular culture section. --The1exile 22:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Another thing; what is this about? I have not heard this anywhere else.
"The plane, which is expected to officially enter service in the coming weeks, will henceforth be called the F-22A — with the trailing letter indicating a first variant, not an extra role."
Entering service in the next few weeks? That was kept quiet! --The1exile 22:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I was admittedly surprised by the change in designation. Is it, in fact, official? One of the primary reasons for the change to F/A was to demonstrate the type's versatility to a skeptical Congress regarding funding constraints (given White House 'largesse') or possible cancellation.
Yes: references should be clarified. And that sentence is mildly odd – I believe it recently achieved initial operational capability (IOC) and such references were probably dumbed down for John Q. As well, the terminal A in F-22A typically not only refers to the first variant but (at least when compared to other contemporary US fighters) a single-seat one. E Pluribus Anthony 22:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it is indeed suprising to change designation so many times, and your point about the terminal A is a very valid one. I only wish that I could find other sources than the one mentioned here ; I am searching through the prolific list of articles on global security now. Any thoughts on anywhere else to look? --The1exile 22:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Regarding whether or not this change is official, I quote "Gen. Michael Moseley, Air Force chief of staff, who is said to have been unhappy with the F/A-22 moniker, announced the renaming in a Dec. 12 speech to an Air National Guard senior leadership conference in Baltimore, Md." I cannot verify this, but I am working hard to find other sources online to link to. No luck yet though. --The1exile 23:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Found something. ABC news mention the news conference (or at least its the same guy, on the same day, talking about the same aeroplane). Doesn't mention release dates though, see [2]. However, whether or not this is official, Lockheed Martin have released 67 ready to fly F-22's according to [3]. --The1exile 23:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Some more confirmation: here, here, [link to Post Chronicle removed], here and here — Impi 23:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I can pick a hole in the third one, since it could well just be that being referred to as the F-22 shows a lack of knowledge for any changes in designation. I will be back tomorrow to then pick up on E Pluribus Anthony's point on the A variant usually being single seat. But right now, I'm too tired to go on debating and researching, I need some sleep. --The1exile 23:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Er, the third one features a quote from Gen. Michael Moseley regarding the change in designation... — Impi 23:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
OK: we should really link to one of these in the article (later when discussing the change of designation or IOC entry) to preclude any ambiguity. I think that such a citation was in the article earier, but somehow got lost. E Pluribus Anthony 00:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed from Testing section

In mock combat, the F-22 Raptors has easily defeated up to eight F-15s at once. One F-15 pilot found his adversary only after the Raptor flew directly over his cockpit. - I've removed this bit as it doesn't quite make sense. How many F-22s defeated the 8 F-15s? I don't think one could have done it alone - does not carry enough armament. So how many was it? It if was, say, 8, then it wasn't a very impressive test... Dan100 (Talk) 17:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you for certain that one F-22 Raptor can't take out 8 F-15 Eagles? It has enough armanents if all shots hit the right place. -- Steven 20:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Other reports have stated that one Raptor did indeed take out eight F-15s in simulated combat. -RedMageCWD 00:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Err, can yu give the source, RedMageCWD? If it is correct, it is amazing. I think it is even possible for more kill if we include the cannon, not cnly the missiles.Draconins 10:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm searching as we speak. One site I've found so far says one Raptor beat four Eagles and a pair beat eight Eagles. I'll see what I can come up with. It links to Air Force Link and Air Force Times stories about the test, but they're vague and don't mention any hard numbers. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find anything definite. -RedMageCWD 18:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I found a magazine which confirms that but it actually 4 Raptor downed 33 F-15 without any loss of the Raptors. It occur in November 2005, where there also F-117 and B-2. The exercise objective is to see how the stealth force performs in attacking. The source is Indonesian magazine Angkasa, a military magazine. Please chechk other source, thanks. Draconins 07:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Supercruise

The F-22A is the first production fighter aircraft capable of "supercruise"; that is, it is able to cruise for sustained periods at supersonic speeds without use of its afterburners. - Actually, that was the English Electric Lightning, some forty years ago. Dan100 (Talk) 17:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The criticisms section; who came up with these arguements?

Someone deserves to have these arguements utterly destroyed.

  • High weight: Thrust to weight is still 1.2:1, an impressive ratio, and it doesn't need to be improved really.
  • Low fuel fraction: fuel is used more effectively in aeroplanes capable of supercruise, as they do not need to carry afterburners.
  • Poor stealth: In air to air combat the Raptor still has the advantage of low radar detection. Also, visibility is hardly an issue; most air-to-air combat is now carried out beyond visual range.
  • Poor strike capability: What? the F-117A's 2000lb bombs have EXACTLY the same penetration as 1 small diameter bomb, and "oh yeah" comes to mind, the F-22A can carry 8 of those.
  • Lack of need: the US relies heavily on their Air Force deterrent to maintain shaky peace relations, This is in basic military studies.
Radar signature is only one aspect of stealthiness, the F-22 has a pretty large Infrared signature coming out it's tailpipe and a sonic boom that you won't have with the B-2 or F-117

Anyone think differently? --The1exile 20:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Not me. "Poor stealth" is downright wrong. One F-15 has a 100% radar signature, while the F-22 has a 50% signature (and the YF-23 has/had a 40%). If that is "poor" stealth... Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 20:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
"Lack of need" is actually a quite valid argument, as the aircraft was designed as a fighter, despite the fact that the last airplane the US lost to an enemy fighter happened in 1991 or thereabouts. So many critics feel that the money would have been better spent on a cheaper aircraft, with more emphasis on the attack role (eg. F-15E, F/A-18E/F). Bjelleklang - talk 21:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
But the attack role is covered very well by the A-10 (going to be kept in service until 2028) , and the only real valid argument is the cost, which has overrun, admittedly. Regardless of the "Lack of need", is there anything else to support these other arguments? My point about the deterrent factor still stands, by the way. --The1exile 21:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
"Poor stealth" is still the first to go, IMHO. The F-22 was designed with stealth in mind. What, it's not invisible enough? :-P Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 21:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll leave this topic up for a few days, then I will remove all undisputed subject matter. IMHO I don't think any of them are even worth mentioning, although in the interests of neutrality I will leave the external link to a report, the army Col. in it probably has his own reasons for disliking the program and quite possibly access to information that I don't have. Still, the topic stands; anyone else have comments? --The1exile 21:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the "deterrent factor", but still; considering the fact that the US has only lost one aircraft in air-air combat over the past 15 years (even without the F-22), some people question the real need for the F-22. It's a fighter after all, and was designed as such (although with air-ground capability), and opponents to the program claim that the F-15 and F-16 can do the job just as good, while the JSF will be an improvement over these at a fraction of the cost when compared to the F-22, which in their words is 'overkill'. Air Forces Monthly discussed various critisism sometime early 2005, and mentioned "lack of need" as well as other arguments, will see if I can find the issue. If so, I'll post the most relevant stuff here. Bjelleklang - talk 21:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, it does look like overkill, but the JSF is only supposed to serve as the main fighter for a few years (2009-2012 if I'm not mistaken, but don't quote me on that) after which the F-22 is expected to take over. The USAF doesn't need to create more aircraft, admittedly, but if they stick with current aircraft there is a good chance that they lose their edge, so yes, cost is the issue here, but that is the only thing that really deserves a mention. --The1exile 21:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Found the issue (july 2005). According to it, the New York Post (Lt Col Ralph Peters (ret)) have published columns critizicing it, and the same has also Christopher Bolcom of the Congressional Research Service in a follow-up to a congressional testimony. They claim that since 1991, the US (all services) has flown 400,000 combat sorties, and lost only one aircraft to another fighter (according to the DoD), this being an F/A-18C during Desert Storm. In other words, the existing aircraft can do the job just as good as the F-22 with the same weapons, while at the same time being cheaper, and thus there is no need for an air superiority fighter. As this issue was raised as part of a congressional testimony, I think it's valid, and should be mentioned in the article. Also, as I remember, the F-22 was originally slated to be the successor to the F-15, while the JSF was to be the successor to the F-16, F/A-18 (pre-E model) and the AV-8. Bjelleklang - talk 22:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
It does seem to be a particularly weak argument though, as it fails to take into account the fact that the US is not the only country creating new fighter aircraft. The latest Russian Sukhoi and MiG variants are far more capable than anything the US has yet faced in its recent combat actions, and these (and maybe even the Eurofighter Typhoon too) may very well end up in the hands of countries whom the US might fight some day. It surely does not make sense to believe that one's current fighter aircraft are good enough to meet any future threat merely because they have a near-perfect record against an older generation of aircraft, does it? If the US wishes to maintain its aerial dominance, it must field an aircraft that is better than anything else out there. For that, the F-22 is precisely what is needed. — Impi 00:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
If you look at Comparison of 21st century fighter aircraft you will see that under DERA study odds in simulated combat Su-35 (a likely candidate for future engagements) the F-15C is slated with a 0.8:1 odds, compared to a very impressive 10.1:1 ratio for the F-22. These stats are not supposed to be considered very accurate as details have not been released, but this is a remarkably good ratio compared to the F-15C, so this proves the capability of this aircraft and also supports Impis points. "Are antiques practical" is the question that seems to face the USAF now, and the answer is "no". --The1exile 11:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

(Resetting indentation)

For what it's worth, my understanding is that the USAF is also worried about the new generation Russian SAMs, which a broader range of countries are buying. They alone may make it much more difficult for current-generation fighters to gain air superiority. --Robert Merkel 22:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The same applies to the F-22 you can't design a plane that's both stealthy from ground threats as air born ones,that was also the point of the "poor stealth" critisism. Not to mention that IR detection has become far more capable since the start of the F-22 program, diminishing it's stealth capability further.

Would the Russian SAMs that you are referring to be the ones designed to shoot down stealth planes? I think I read something about Russians reverse engineering the F-117A Nighthawk to upgrade their SAMs, when one was crashed in action. The sheer speed of the F-22 would make it hard to design a missile that could catch it after detection. But SAM's are not used in air to air combat, and the A-10 is staying in service until 2028, so the F-22 is definitely not going to replace it any time soon, and SAMs are not a priority over enemy fighters. And to the unsigned comment, IR detection is still not advanced enough to target over the sorts of ranges that modern fighters are capable of. --The1exile 17:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
About being more efficent than other aircraft in supersonic flight because of "supercruise", one thing to keep in mind is TANSTAFL. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. During flight tests when the F-22 was supersonic, even though F-15s had to user afterburner to keep up, both aircraft had similar fuel flow rates. Meaning that they were both burning similar amounts of fuel. The engines in the F-22 are designed to generate a great deal of thrust "dry" (without AB), but the amount of fuel burned per pound of thrust generated is still in line with previous low-bypass turbofans. Supercruise is not a magic bullet. It is just the result of VERY powerful engines.

Problems with a picture

Can someone fix the picture of a raptor observing an F-15? It shows the text as an internal link, I think. If I have time I will look it up. --The1exile 17:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Speed

I got another 5 websites

Site A: Mach 2.0 Site B: Mach 2.5 Site C: Mach 1.8 Site D: Mach 2.4 Site E: Mach 2.2

My thought: Mach 2.4 seems to be reasonable. Weight : Thrust ratio is high.

They couldn't use a variable intake for stealth reasons, because of that the F-22 cannot reach it's speed potential.
Try and assess the credibility of the people making the guess, not do your own independent analysis of the guess itself. --Robert Merkel 22:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Why not just do it the easy way, avoid speculation and cite the USAF's fact file, which claims mach 1,5+ with no afterburner, and "mach 2 class in general" [4]? Bjelleklang - talk 23:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Because the USAF is being incredibly vague. --Robert Merkel 06:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
But everyone else is just guessing. TomTheHand 13:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Especially when you include the fact that many aspects of the aircraft and it's capabilities are still classified! I think it should remain as it is today, citing USAF and Lockheed. Bjelleklang - talk 14:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Mach 1.8, 2.0, 2.2 or 2.4 are the likely maximum speeds. And "mach 2 class" means that the aircraft can go faster than mach 2.0. And the proposed speed (when it was YF-22) was Mach 2.7. Reasonable right? Good engine and aerodynamics means that the aircraft can accelerate pass it's limits. Mach 2.4 is a good maximum speed. Irfanfaiz 05:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I have an external link here from global security, citing the speed of the Raptor to be Mach 1.8 (supercruise: Mach 1.5) I will look for more external links when I have time and I'm logged on.[5] --212.85.15.67 13:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
All of that may be from verifiable sources, but it's still just a guess. The USAF has not released the exact specs of the plane. They are classified. I would be alright with a note clarifying that "some independent analysts" claim a maximum speed of between Mach 1.8 and 2.4. TomTheHand 14:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Citing the USAF and Lockheed would be ok with me, additional sources should be represented as per TomTheHand's suggestion; USAF and Lockheed are just about the only sources that actually can make the max speed official, and they have yet to do so, except for a very vague indication. Bjelleklang - talk 14:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've read that while the engines are capable of pushing the aircraft much faster, the flight control system limits the top speed to Mach 1.8. This is because of the heavy use of plastics on the aircraft, and they'd weaken if heated too much. The canopy is also plastic.

Again, it's possible, but "I read somewhere" isn't something we can cite. --Robert Merkel 04:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I spoke with a Raptor test pilot at the Edwards AFB air show a few years ago. He said that he had no trouble breaking Mach 2. However, he would not give me an exact top speed. Also, the Raptor can supercruise at Mach 1.7 at least, per this quote from Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John P. Jumper

“Today I flew the Raptor at speeds exceeding (Mach 1.7) without afterburners,” General Jumper said. “To be able to go that fast without afterburners means that nobody can get you in their sights or get a lock-on. The aircraft’s impressive stealth capability, combined with its super cruise (capability), will give any adversary a very hard time.” (Courtesy of Air Education and Training Command News Service)"

The speed question is of course of the most real interest to the child witin us, and looking over the conversations here and the stats reported some of you have pretty dominant inner children... I've just had a look at the recruitment focused fact sheet section within the "cool stuff" part of the UASF's website (http://www.airforce.com/coolstuff/hangar.php) and they give the following stats for performance: Speed- Mach 1.58 (1.7 with afterburners). I think that is the best source for info of this type, rather than quotes from speculative sources, test pilots, designers, games, hearsay etc. It is a definitive, simple number from one of THE most official sources on the subject. With that in mind, I'll make the change. feel free to change it back, but remember this comes straight from a proper source this time that uses an actual number and not just a "class" like the other UASF fact sheet, (the fact that the numbers are less also makes the whole thing a bit more credible). The G limit is also down to "+7.9". OzoneO 13:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I decided to revert it back, i thought it was vandalisim, sorry. But don't go by what the USAF site says. The first thing you learn about the USAF and it's "stats" is that they always low-ball the statistics on it's aircraft. It's pretty much understood by everyone that the F-22 does far over Mach 2 and closer to mach 2.5 with afterburner in real life, and around mach 1.7 with no afterburner. user:anonymous353125 7 October 2006

range

though I know little of the subject, I deleted: 

or perhaps inflight refuelling

because, with inflight refuelling the concept of range is meaningless, I think. — Xiutwel (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree, inflight refueling does not make range meaningless. THe range of an aircraft is more then just how much fuel it can carry. Engines require cool down time, airframes require regular maintenance, airframe components are suseptible to extreme wear. When inflight refueling negates the concept of range, the Air Force makes a huge deal about it. A prominant example is the B-52, which they claim is limited only by the endurance of the crew. Klauth 01:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Inflight refuelling does not make range meaningless, but inflight refuelling cannot accurately measure range. With drop tanks, range has a definite measurement, whereas with inflight refuelling range depends on the cooling systems or versatility of aircraft parts. --The1exile 22:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Inflight refuelling isn't meaningless at all. During some parts of a mission, inflight refuelling is impossible bacause tankers are very vulnerable, and rarely if ever venture into enemy airspace without total air superiority having been established. talking about range: here is an exerpt from the wikipedia "supercruise" article: estimates that use of supercruise for a 100 nautical mile dash as part of a mission would cut the F-22's combat radius from about 600 to about 400 nautical miles. ---karelke---

Infoboxes; we don't use them. Does anyone object to me removing it?

Infoboxes are a pain, they take up the whole screen on lower resolution and the information is uninformative in places. All these specs are in their own section, and the page layout does not conform with WP:Air. The picture can (and should) be kept. Anyone object to me removing it?--The1exile 13:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Infobox removed, picture kept. --The1exile 12:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose significant trims to this section, on the grounds that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just like we shouldn't list every movie that includes a shot of the Boeing 727 on the 727 article, it doesn't make sense to include a list of every video game that mentions the F-22 here. Just being seen in a movie or video game is not significant enough to merit inclusion. However, I have no objection to things like F-22 Raptor: the video game. The ones I don't oppose keeping are left at the bottom of the list below.

  • The F-22 Raptor made an appearance in the 2003 Marvel comic based movie Hulk. Unless the appearence is a major part of the movie.
  • The F-22 Raptor appeared in Matthew Reilly's 1998 novel Ice Station. Unless the appearence is a major part of the novel.
  • The F-22 Raptor can be seen attacking the alien Tripods in the 2005 movie War of the Worlds Patently not a major part of the movie.
  • The stealth Fighter unit in Civilization II is represented by an F-22 Raptor. Definitely not notable.
  • The F-22 appears in the Lucasarts game Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction. The player can call in a F-22 to get rid of enemy helicopters. Not featured prominently enough for mention.
  • The F-22 appears in Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor where four F-22 Raptors take on the Japanese AWACS aircraft. Not a major part of the story.
  • Ace Combat 3: Electrosphere features a fictional variant called the "F-22C Raptor II". Insufficient prominence: one of several dozen aircraft in the game.
  • The F-22 Raptor is featured in the Arcade Shooter "Strikers 1945 III" (1999 in Japan) Insufficient prominence.
  • The F-22 Raptor is featured in the Konami Airforce Delta Series. One of dozens of plane options.
  • The F-22 is featured in the Real-Time Strategy Game Rise of Nations by Microsoft Games Studios. One of 200 different unit types.

Maybes:

  • The computer games US Navy Fighters and US Navy Fighters '97 both include a naval version of the aircraft, suitable for carrier landings. The games may not be notable enough to have Wikipedia articles.
Game is notable enough (as part of EA Games/Janes Interactive Fighter Anthology series), but wouldln't say that the appearance is big enough/central enough for the game to be included.Bjelleklang - talk 09:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is its appearence? Is it one of many fighter options? Is it seen in several video clips? Ingoolemo talk 06:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Janes released several survey simulators that included the F-22, Fighters Anthology (1998, included US Navy Fighters) and USAF (1999) Games may not be notable enough to have Wikipedia articles.
  • Novalogic released three F-22 simulations, F-22 Lightning II (1996), F-22 Raptor (1998), and F-22 Lightning 3 (1999). Games may not be notable enough to warrant Wikipedia articles.
  • Interactive Magic released a F-22 simulation titled iF-22(1997). Game may not be notable enough to warrant Wikipedia article.
  • The F-22 was a playable aircraft in the games Jetfighter III (1996), Jetfighter IV (2000),and Jetfighter V (2003). Games may not be notable enough to warrant Wikipedia articles.
  • The F-22 is a playable aircraft in the Video Games "Lethal Skies" & "Lethal Skies II" as the F-22 Raptor and the F/A-22 Raptor. (Respectively) Games may not be notable enough to warrant Wikipedia articles.
  • The F-22 Raptor is available for purchase in Air Force Delta Storm. Game may not be notable enough to warrant article; appearence may not be notable enough.

Definite keeps:

I think the games are notable enough, and are also centered around the aircraft itself.Bjelleklang - talk 09:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ingoolemo talk 06:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Command & Conquer: Generals featured the Raptor as THE major aircraft, the only air dominance fighter of the US. The only other fighter in the game is the MiG (actually the Mikoyan Project 1.44). The rest I will look at when I am logged on. --82.198.250.68 08:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Added some notes inbetween, USNF should not be kept, and Total Air War and F-22 Air Dominance Fighter should be kept. Bjelleklang - talk 09:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I have updated my analysis above based on your comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingoolemo (talk • contribs)
Answering here, to make everything easier to read: In USNF 97 (and possibly also USNF/USNF Gold) it was a possible choice in one of the campaigns, together with five or six other aircraft. The sim is however not anything near accurate, and the F-22 featured is capable of landing on aircraft carriers. Bjelleklang - talk 17:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd shift all but particularly famous appearances into an article F-22 Raptor in popular culture. And, of all those listed here, I don't think *any* are particularly famous. --Robert Merkel 05:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

As you seem to imply in your above comment, there is almost never enough data relevant enough to warrant a separate 'Popular culture' article. Ingoolemo talk 20:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The solution: Nix all but the most popular examples of Popular culture. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
My opinion is that any game that isn't an attempt at a serious sim rarely makes the cut for significant addition. My criteria is that the media appearance is either significant to the general public (e.g. Top Gun) or is incisive about the plane, which the sims are. Appeareances as a unit in RTS...no. Appearances in arcade sims I vehemently disagree with. They're a skin of the aircraft on a flight model that is very loosely based on the aircraft itself. I'm particularly fed up with Ace Combat fans inserting "X is featured in Ace Combat 05" for every plane in the game, when there are 72 aircraft in the sim. I'll give the Sega Game a pass due to its age. My reasoning is that a semi-serious sim will give a reader some insight into the plane if they want to go out and play it, so even the non-notable ones are worth a mention; you're not going to get that from a game that lets you load 88 missiles into a Raptor, even if it's one of the hottest PS2 games. --Mmx1 19:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this issue seems to have escalated rather nastily during the night, but I'll do my best to calm it down, and take another try at explaining what's occurred in this article. (This comment is mainly directed at Stang281, but is also meant for other posters above.)

Firstly, I would like to apologise on behalf of myself, Mmx1, and Emt147 for being too rude to you. You obviously meant no harm by adding the link, and didn't deserve what was said to you. Before being chastised, you should have been thanked for your interest.

However, I would like to take some time and offer explanations for the actions taken by Deniss, Mmx1, and the comments posted above. Because Wikipedia is often targeted by linkspam, where people attempt to advertise their personal webpages or boost their Google rank by adding links to Wikipedia, many Wikipedians tend to view additions such as yours with suspicion. I'm not saying they're right in doing so, nor am I labelling your contributions as linkspam; I'm just explaining how some editors behave.

Also, articles like this one tend to get flooded with trivia, such as every video game it's ever appeared in (see above). Likewise, it sometimes seems that anyone who has a personal webpage devoted to the F-22 wants a link to their webpage. Consequently, some Wikipedians—Mmx1 is an especially notable member of this group—tend to view such additions sceptically. Again, I'm not passing judgement, only describing behaviour.

I would also like to take time to note, as I implied above, that Administrators have no authority over content disputes. We can only exercise our powers to deal with serious breaches of policy or protocol. Please note, however, that revert warring (reverting an article three times in 24 hours) is punishable by a 24 hour block. Because I am personally involved in this dispute, I will not be taking action against anyone who engages in revert warring, but I will take steps to ensure that such behaviour is dealt with.

Now, as for the matter of the link you added. I have reviewed your webpage, and unfortunately all of the images I reviewed had no source or copyright information. Images can never be distributed as 'Fair Use' unless their source and copyright status is adequately described. Because there is no source information provided, we do not know whether the images are Public Domain (taken by the Air Force) or copyrighted (taken by Lockheed, or possibly by photojournalists). Because of this uncertainty, we should not include the link to your album. This would be tantamount to illegally uploading copyrighted images onto Wikipedia itself; we have a responsibility to limit our links to pages that are not potential copyvios, unless we have no other options.

You cite our legal disclaimer as evidence to the contrary. However, the disclaimer has no standing as content policy. Rather, as I noted above, it is designed to reduce Wikimedia's chances of getting sued—nothing more. The fact that we claim to be free of legal responsibility does not excuse us from being choosy about our external links.

Any of your images that are in the Public Domain can be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Please follow these very important rules, however:

  1. Images must be in the Public Domain, or available under a free licence such as the GFDL or CC-by-SA. Images in the Commons may not be Fair Use images, or images used with permission if said permission does not include third-party use.
  2. You must include a hyperlink to the location you got the image from, preferrably one that allows navigation throughout other parts of the site rather than just to the image page.
  3. You must include a hyperlink to prove the copyright status of the image.

Ingoolemo talk 19:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. Apologies to Stang as well for my abrasive language. I tend to be bold and quite loose with my use of sarcasm. Incidentally, I am in general a deletionist (just peek at my edit history), so it's by no means personal. --Mmx1 19:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Apologies if I was harsh. You do need to learn about copyright laws to clear up some of the misconceptions you have. Even government/military images are not public domain by default -- there are exceptions and you need to read the copyright notices. Like others said, many of the "military" images are actually PR from the manufacturer and as such very much copyrighted. - Emt147 Burninate! 19:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to this first experience of contributing to Wikipedia, I won't be contributing any longer. Great job guys! No wonder I am constantly coming across a lack of information on the various Wikipedia articles. At least you all have one less person to worry about. :)--Stang281 20:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you feel this way. I still encourage you to become educated about copyrights. - Emt147 Burninate! 21:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Advanced Tactical Fighter

I find it odd that Advanced Tactical Fighter redirects to this article, yet barely makes any mention of the contract fly-off. Ironically, the Wiki article for the other plane in the ATF competition (YF-23) contains more pertinent information on the fly-off.

Problem solved. Someone formed a new article.

MTOW

Where did the 80,000 lb MTOW come from? Green's Great Book of Fighters (2001) gives a 55,000 lb MTOW. The 2.7-fold increase from empty weight to MTWO is better than what the C-5 Galaxy can muster. I don't even think you can find space for 50,000 lb of fuel and weapons (an equivalent of a fully loaded F-4 Phantom!) inside a single-seat multirole fighter. - Emt147 Burninate! 01:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I think it is possible, or may be you have wrong concept about MTOW, see MTOW. However, I don't know whether the number 80,000 lb is correct or not, since the aircraft's spec largely classified. Draconins 06:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Given the prodigious thrust output of the engines, it's not that unlikely; but I would like to see a cite and doubt you'd be actually be able to load it with 50k of fuel and ordnance. --Mmx1 02:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Pop culture

I've removed the entire pop culture section -- it's just a magnet for fanboyism and paragraph-long recitations of Tom Clancy books. If semi-accurate sims are worth mentioning (Digital Integration's F-22 and F-22 Total Air War), a "Simulations" section should be made. - Emt147 Burninate! 01:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Bravo! --Robert Merkel 01:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Question

See the pic on this page -- F-22's behind the B-2? You guys are no doubt better SME's than I on the F22, so I'd value your opinions. here •Jim62sch• 20:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Pretty hard to see, but my guess would be F/A-18s rather than F-22s. Shrink a plane down to six pixels wide and there aren't many who'd be able to definitively identify it. I could certainly tell you some things it's NOT ;-) TomTheHand 21:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I've seen the high-resolution copy of the photo. There are four F-16s, four F-15s, and eight F/A-18s and one SH-60 in the picture. No F-22s.
OK, thanks...I was debating between F/A-18's and F-22's, but I figured, wrongly, that since the PRC was watching we might want to pull out the F-22. Anyway, thanks again. •Jim62sch• 22:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Current edit war

I'm not sure if you guys are looking at this talk page, but I noticed you guys are edit warring over the following passage:

Maneuverability in real-world combat is hotly debated, with some experts claiming it is inferior to the Typhoon. It is not known whether USAF claims about Raptor's superior maneuverability are accurate; many argue that, in any case, today’s beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles make maneuverability less important.

I've noticed no attempts at discussion from either side. On T800m101's part, I assume that that may be because you are new to Wikipedia (if so, welcome). On the other hand, Mmx1 has accused T800m101 of vandalism off the bat, which I consider highly inappropriate. Mmx1, I encourage you to reread Wikipedia:Vandalism. Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. Do you honestly think that T800m101 is deliberately trying to make the article worse, or do you think it's more likely that he disagrees with the content of the paragraph? If he is removing it because he disagrees, then you have no right to accuse him of vandalism. He may just not know the proper procedure of discussing changes. Please do not bite the newcomers.

Now, on to the content in question. Mmx1, do you have a reliable source for that information? Even if you have a source, I seriously doubt it could be reliable information; I'm certain that the details of the F-22's maneuverability are highly classified and anyone making such claims is engaging in a lot of speculation and guesswork. TomTheHand 21:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

My accusations are based on his behavior at 4th generation jet fighter, where the user has blanked an entire section repeatedly - blanking qualifies as vandalism. If you look at the history, an IP(User:68.39.163.15 was removing the content in a similar fashion shortly before, and the deletion was repeated several times before I made any accusations of vandalism. The deletions here have not been as severe, and I have never accused them of being vandalism. However, in concert with his other deletions (which are his only contributions to wiki), it seemed appropriate that such deletions were in bad faith and should be reverted. --Mmx1 21:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I see what you're saying in reference to 4th generation jet fighter and I apologize for jumping the gun. I still would call it a content dispute rather than vandalism, though a content dispute without communication is probably just as bad. The content he's removing from 4th gen fighter is sourced, so I can't agree with its removal and without communication from T800m101 I can't really imagine his reasons. I've left a message on his talk page asking him to talk a bit, but since he hasn't responded to anything before I don't know how hopeful to be. TomTheHand 02:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

weasel words

The F-22 is claimed by many sources to be the world’s most effective air-superiority fighter
That way be weaselly, but it accurately reflects perception. There hasn't been any air-to-air combat involing the latest generation of fighters, such as the latest Su-27 family derivatives, the Eurofighter Typhoon, and the F-22, and they haven't even fought against each other in exercises (as far as we know). So nobody really knows. --Robert Merkel 04:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
At least in exercise, it has fought F-15 family. Draconins 03:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Transformers

Apparently, this jet will be featured in the upcoming movie Transformers. Article is here: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=23105.--NMajdan•talk 20:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor/Archive_1&oldid=1264090138"