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

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Military history WikiProject     (Rated 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: 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: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated B-Class) AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WPAVIATIONaviation articles Aviation portal v • d • e 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.  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 This article is supported by the aircraft project.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the F-22 Raptor article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Sections with no replies in 180 days are automatically moved.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on September 7, 2004.

This article is written in American English, and some terms used in it are different or absent from British English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Contents 1 That's more like daydreaming 2 Gold price 3 Lock needed 4 Mach Speed 5 Critics section? 6 Cancellation rumors 7 F-22 loss 8 WP:COI suspicion 9 Yak-43 10 DoD Images on Amateur Website 11 Ban on exports 12 F-22 Stealth is a fraud 13 What happened to the CAG? 14 Further procurement and proposed end of production 15 Reorg to fit the template? 16 Defense Daily 17 Maintenance issues and Controversies 18 Looks like the "controversy" won -- Senate scraps plane 19 Never used in war 20 CRS link names 21 Major Neutrality Problems with this Article 22 External tanks 23 Repeated Text, Repeated Text 24 Trading Raptors for Super Hornets? 25 Day by day Congressional debate 26 If we had a F-22 vs F-35 page 27 Prowler comment 28 Clarifying some issues with the plane 29 Four AIM-9X, not 30 Reserve Raptors 31 People editing are confused between the F-22's possible future and current Mission capabilities 32 Main Image 33 Developed Into? 34 Export Variant 35 Comparable list 36 Infobox image

[edit] That's more like daydreaming

> 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)

• 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)

• Have you considered that the F-22 is a lot more modern than the Mig-23MF is and, as such, may have more tasks automated by the onboard computer? Besides, given that nobody here actually has any personal knowledge of what the F-22 can really do, I think we should list all the capabilities that the manufacturer and USAF say it can do rather than dismiss an "official" capability just because some Wikipedian thinks that if something couldn't be done with the Mig-23 than obviously it can't be done with the F-22. PS, the US has been through worse times before and it's still here, so don't get your hopes up that it will go under (and if it does, so will your country).68.164.4.173 (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite sure the F22 HAS been used as a mini AWACS, during simulated combat against f15's, after expending all their missiles and cannon rounds, planes stayed on station, presumably an F22 can track an enemy and use the wireless link to tell another where it is.

The datalinking ability of the F22 does not require the pilot to run tactical mission allocation. Ground teams and a real AWACs would do that. While the pilot could be a FAC, the aircraft is essentially an extension of the sensor reach of the combined air assets that are data linking. Ditto with the canceled Comanche, but for the JSTARS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.139.76 (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to kinda rain on IP 82.131's parade here...the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War used under-maintained F-14s as "mini-AWACs" because of it's radar. So the F-22 being used as one is hardly a stretch here. SoulBrotherKab (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gold price

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)

Oh, are you upset that the F-22 is better than your Eurofighter or Sukhoi's? Get over it.68.164.4.173 (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt the US dollar will become obsolete at any time in the foreseeable future. Spartan198 (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

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

[edit] Lock needed

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)

So only "experts" and former test pilot jocks like yourself should be able to put in your two cents here?68.164.4.173 (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Mach Speed

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)

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)

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

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)

Why the max speed is listed at Mach 2.25, since thetest pilot Paul Metz has clearly stated that its max speed exceeds Mach 2.42 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.97.162.206 (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Mach 2.25 and associated speeds are cited. Metz stated the speed is over 1,600 mph, which does not appear to be cited. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Mach is actually more limiting than miles per hour as the aircraft will have problems when the control surfaces on the wings run into the shockwave from the nose at well below Mach 2.5. Hcobb (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Critics section?

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)

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 in the article. The corrosion issue looks to be minor. The op readiness should be mentioned. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"Not needed" or "bad for the article"? I think criticism sections are good in any Wikipedia article, especially in such a long article. Tempshill (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Most Criticisms sections on Wikipedia turn out to be nothing more than a long, rambling diatribe by ignorant, impotent, and spiteful people who want to bash something (especially if it's something about the USA), and instead of looking at the facts first AND THEN coming to a conclusion, they have an agenda first and then scour the internet (or use books that, surprise, surprise, CAN'T be accessed online) for some source--skewing the info or context of that source if need be--to give their own opinions the force of expert fact, all the while ignoring supportive bits of information (such as the F-22 being a first-strike aircraft designed to seize control of the skies immediately, or launch a decisive first strike behind enemy lines, so, ultimately, it really doesn't matter if the plane needs high-maintenance or isn't robust as some other aircraft, because it has the ability to sneak into enemy territory and destroy an enemy's (e.g., Russia's) more "robust" fighters on the ground, or at least destroy the runways so those robust fighters can't take off in the first place....The F-22 kicks in the door, and the more robust F-35 and Strike Eagles take it from there....)68.164.6.249 (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

My post was clear. There's a good bit of criticism in the article now, especially high costs. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There actually isn't much criticism anywhere in the article. The F22 is slated to replace the F14 and the F16, as such a neutral would contain sections comparing the two, explaining the rationale for why they need to be replaced. This article does not have that. I have read the whole thing more times and I care to count and I have been noticing that every time any material is introduced that contains a whiff of criticism, it is deleted.EricLeFevre (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to put in another place for people to say biased, unreferenced opinions, we get a lot of that in this talk page. Maybe a section talking about issues with the F-22, but not criticism. Williamrmck (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a very, VERY controversial program and has been for the better part of 15 years. A controversy section complete with FACTS is necessary. EricLeFevre (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

We are much better off dealing with each aspect of the program in one place, rather than taking issues out of their context by listing every critic one by one. Hcobb (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the only trouble is that criticism of the F-22 is found nowhere in the article and every time someone tries to add some, it gets deleted. EricLeFevre (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Counting:

F-35 noted better than F-22, 6 cases. F-22 Too expensive noted, 6 times. F-22 not used in wars, 2 times. F-22 lacks capability or limited, 5 times. F-22 Maint problems, 5 times. F-22 structure problem, 1 time F-22 computer crash or bugs, 3 times. So my count is 28, not zero, but I'd love to add a source about the aircraft's IR blindness. (Compare to combat configuration of B-52, F-16, F/A-18, F-15, F-35, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcobb (talk • contribs) 22:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the technical criticisms should be separated from the criticisms of the program or the controversy over the reduction/funding-cuts as they are different issues. The discussions over technical problems/flaws (not sure what the right word would be) could go into its own section under the technical aspects of the article (But as Hcobb says, there is plenty in the various sections already). The criticisms of the program and the funding controversy should go into separate sections in order to keep the engineering merits of the plane separate from the political struggles that these programs usually get caught up in. --DClearwater (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And 99% of these articles will be critics of the MIC in general rather than just one program and so should be listed in the page that matches their coverage. Hcobb (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on that... so we should keep any general MIC criticisms for those appropriate entries. But we still needs to acknowledge any specific criticism of the F-22 program itself (especially as this relates to U.S. politics). More importantly, there needs to be information (in its own section) on the funding controversy. --DClearwater (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This page will never have a critics section. After all, Raptor is just perfect, right? (sarcarsm). I do not use Wikipedia as source for any military or historical info because this "north-americans as the best of the best" view. Use this as construtive critic, after all one of most important goals of Wikipedia is the NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.58.3.166 (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cancellation rumors

I don't understand why my simple line about cancellation or cutback rumors in the media has been deleted. It made headlines around the world, and it is the most known "recent development" on the F-22 program. If not provided with a rationale, I'll recover it. Please explain. --MaeseLeon (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Reasons were given in the edit summaries when that was removed at least one time. The media is just talking about what might happen at this point. Wikipedia is not a news service (see WP:NOTNEWS). Wait until a decision made... -Fnlayson (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is not a news service, then half of the "recent developments" section is inappropiate. I have been reviewing the history of this article and found that any criticism or simple revelation of drawbacks in the F-22 program has been erased and silenced. This is deeply partial and against a fundamental Wikimedia principle (see WP:NPV). Don't get me wrong, I find that the F-22 is a great plane and I'm a follower (that's because I came to the article), but the points of view policy has been handled in a deeply wrongful way here. So I am going to review carefully the editions from now on in order to recover properly verified views (see WP:V), no matter if they're critical or supportive. --MaeseLeon (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Obama administration is taking "scalps" - cutting military programs - that's no secret, nor a surprise either. The rumors at this point are all just general, with the reporters speculating about what will be cut. If a reporter stated something like "Sources withint the Obama admin/DOD have told me that the F-22 will be cancelled/cut back/whatever by next week," then that is more specific, and probably notable. But that's not the type of rumors being dealt with here. Anyway, we should know something concrete by the end of the month. Unfourtunately. - BillCJ (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually negative news from informal sources has recently been added. Just search for the word "paste" in the current article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcobb (talk • contribs) 02:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No one is objecting to all "negative news from informal sources", just vague claims and suppositions by people who don't actually know what is going to happen. We'll know soon enough. - BillCJ (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Right. The stealth maintenance part has an Aviation Week article largely backing up the informal source. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked at MaeseLeon’s source; basically, what we have here is a reporter’s misunderstanding of what he is writing about. (A first time for that, eh?) A cancellation of the F-22 would mean abruptly ending an existing production contract. What is actually going on is that the new administration is trying to decide whether to place further orders for the airplane. The DoD was supposed to have decided by March whether to place a firm order for the long-lead items for the first four of another 20-aircraft “Lot 10” batch, but they slipped that to April, and it may now not be until May. The longer the decision is delayed, the more likely it is that there will be a break in production, which would make further orders more costly. The USAF would actually like to have that and two further batches (11 and 12) of the same size before production ends. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

flightglobal writes, Mr. Gates wants to shut down the line.--89.245.230.111 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sec. Gates made a speech yesterday (Apr 6) in which he actually said that, so it's not a rumor anymore. Cited text giving the proposed cancellation was also added to the article yesterday. But thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sec. Gates is for STOPPING PRODUCTION OF ANY NEW F-22's (though, some Air Force generals and Senators don't want him to have his way), but HE ISN'T FOR CANCELING THE WHOLE PROGRAM and destroying those F-22's that are already part of the Air Force arsenal. Gates thinks that the F-22 is the best plane the Air Force has--the thing is, like most of the F-22 critics, he thinks that the F-22 is TOO GOOD, is tops in more areas than a CAPABLE jet needs to be tops in, and that's why it's unnecessarily expensive. Instead, he wants to keep the small numbers of the F-22's that we already have to use as sort of a first strike secret weapon, while making up the rest of the Air Force with cheaper, ALMOST as good, F-35's. Personally, not that it matters here, LOL, I agree with him. Why spend billions more on 100's of more F-22's that 10 years from now may be outclassed by stealth fighters made by other countries. Let's use the F-22's we have, build lots of F-35's, then when other nations build their 5th generation planes, we'll come out after them with even better F-22 Mark 2's.68.164.6.249 (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Shutting down the line is not necessarily the same thing as cancelling the program. Gates proposed canceling several programs, such as the VH-71. The F-22 program of record (POR) calls for 183 aircraft, and Gates is proposing 187 – the POR aircraft plus the 4 GWOT supplemental proposed by Congress. (It would actually be fair to say he is proposing extending the program by four aircraft.) "Cancellation" of a program is what happens either prior to its planned entry into production or a work halt imposed in the midst of an ongoing production contract; what Gates is really proposing is "capping" the program at 187 aircraft. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] F-22 loss

An F-22 operating out of Edwards AFB, CA, on a test mission crashed around 10:00 am local time today. No details yet on a possible cause or the status of the pilot. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A reference http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/03/25/324350/us-air-force-f-22-raptor-crashes-in-california.html MilborneOne (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please keep Dave Cooley's family in prayer. While I only knew him by reputation, I have many friends who knew him personally. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't already seen it, there is a Wiki article on Cools. He was a fine man and will be missed. Skeet Shooter (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:COI suspicion

I notice in looking at this article's history, that there appears to have been a sustained effort to promote a positive image of this aircraft and downplay criticism and controversy. I noticed that a lot of anonymous IP editors have been involved. As a precaution, I've posted a request at the COI Noticeboard to check to see if any of the IP edits are originating from Lockheed Martin or Boeing. If anyone is aware of any COI possibly taking place on this article, please note it here. Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you friggin' kidding me? How the hell will Wikipedia--or fellow Wikipedians--tell if the IP's are coming FROM Lockheed Martin or Boeing, OR ANYWHERE??? Indeed, how do you know that NON-ANONYMOUS IP's aren't from an employee of Lockheed or Boeing (or maybe an employee of Sukhoi or an European firm)??? How do you know that the people who say that a certain IP comes from Boeing, etc., isn't bullshitting for a personal agenda of their own? Where the heck will Wikipedia get the legal authority to discover where certain IP's are coming from? And what about dynamic IP's? You make me laugh....Oh, P.S., I work for Saab!68.164.6.249 (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you're just upset that the F-22 is better than the jets of your own country. Get over it.68.164.6.249 (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please point out where IP editors have removed properly cited content that has not been reverted/restored. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The way this article is written is absolutely no different than the way articles are written about any other aircraft on this site. Besides, how could you tell if an IP was from Lockheed or Boeing? How can you tell if a registered user doesn't work for some aircraft company? The article is fine as is. It presents the info and lets the reader choose to accept or reject it, just like any other article here.68.164.4.173 (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen nothing that hasn't been addressed (so I see no need to file at WP:COI), but it should also be noted that (in the past) there have been efforts to unnecessarily denigrate the aircraft as well. Both issues should be avoided IAW WP:NPOV. As Fnlayson stated, if there are any current issues, please be specific and we can discuss any changes to comply with policy/guidelines. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Yak-43

Regarding the possible desing influences of the Yak-43 on the F-22, please note that both Bill Gunston and Yefim Gordon, the two most widley published authors of books on Soviet aircraft, have both stated that the similarities between the earlier Yak-43 design and the F-22 are too great for there not to have been an influence. Please remember that Lockheed-Martin was already working very closely with the Yak-43 design team on several systems for the future F-35 at the time the design of the F-22 was being developed. Finally, I would encourage anyone who wants to dismiss this as a possibility to first look at the design drawings of the Yak-43 dating from 1983-1984. There is little doubt that Lockheed-Martin gained a lot more than just VTOL development from their $400 million investment in Yakovlev. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If this is true, why don't the Russian's have a plane as good as the F-22 RIGHT NOW??? This is typical of the Russian mentality. They either invent EVERYTHING, or say other countries invent things only by using ripped off info created by Russian scientists or engineers. Perhaps the Russians will go back to saying they invented Baseball again. It is interesting that the "Medium Combat Aircraft" that is being built by both India and Russia LOOKS ALMOST EXACTLY LIKE THE F-22! Check the MCA entry on Wikipedia.68.164.6.249 (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Comparable aircraft means more than appearance. They have to be "of similar role, era, and capability" per WP:Air/PC guidelines. Use those sources to cite the F-22 connection in the Yakovlev Yak-41 article.. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. This nails it. The F-22 is a 5th generation fighter, and the first of a new era. The Yak-43? Not even close, in era or capability. ViperNerd (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? The YF-22 was developed in the 80s, and first flew on 29 September 1990; the design was settled long before that. Gunston and Gordon both state that the Lock-Yak cooperation began in 1991. Did Yak also develop time travel?? - BillCJ (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This is actually the first time I've heard it suggested that the Yak-43 (or its relatives) influenced the design of the F-22; I think Ken is confusing the Yak-41/141 influenced on the F-35. The role the F-22 was designed for is completely different from that of a STOVL fighter like these Yak designs. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've seen a pic in Y. Gordon's book of one the Yak-41/-43 offshoots, and it does resemble the F-22. However, to even imply a connection without direct supporting statements from reliable sources is too much of a stretch. Companies are capable of arriving at similar designes totally independent of each other. At least that is what we are told re: the Su-24, Tu-144, Buran, etc! Btw, Mark, do you have any cited info on the extent of the relation between the X/F-35B and the Yak-141? We currently have conflicting info based on separate sources. Some discussion is on the F-35 talk page, along with edit warring on the Yakovlev Yak-141 and Yakovlev Yak-43 pages. Some informed opinion at the least would be welcome. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what image Gordon has (perhaps a publisher's error?), but when I look at them, I see no real resemblance at all. The Yak-43 layout follows a clear evolution from the Yak-38 and Yak-41/141. The F-22's layout comes from a variety of factors, not the least of which are signatures reduction. I frankly believe the general layout of the F-22's design was pretty much settled (though tweaking remained) well before the Yak-43 even became known to the West.

As for Yak's influence on the F-35, I've already added a link there to my earlier explanation of the exact relationship. I'll try to see if I can find some sources. Unfortunately, much of this occurred before the Internet became ubiquitous, so there might be little online and I might have to resort to digging through old material in my "spare" time. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on what few drawings one can find of the proposed Yak-43, the "eyeball test" would seem to reveal that the F-22 has much more of its basic layout design in common with the aircraft that it was built to succeed, the F-15. Not a surprise that Lockheed and Boeing (who had access to F-15 design) would choose to take many cues from one of the most capable and successful modern air superiority fighters. ViperNerd (talk) 06:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Just curious: How did Boeing have access to the F-15 design? Were they a subcontractor on the F-15 when the F-22 design was finalized in the late 90s? - BillCJ (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...as it turns out, the Boeing-McDonnell Douglas merger wasn't finalized until 1997 (my memory had it occurring earlier than that), so I guess any F-15 design material they would have inherited wouldn't have made much difference since Lockheed's design for the YF-22 was well advanced (indeed, it was flying) prior to that date. I still assert that it's apparent that the overall design lineage of the F-22 can be better traced to the Eagle, as the Yak-43 wasn't even on paper when the YF-22 was under development. ViperNerd (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

[Unindent] Per BillCJ's request, I have assembled some reference sources on the Yak influence on the X/F-35. I've inserted them on the X-35 Talk page. With regard to a possible influence of the Yak-41 or Yak-43 on the F-22 design, I've found nothing that would reliably support that, so I would consider the issue here to be moot. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DoD Images on Amateur Website

An addition of an external link to an amateur website was reverted as it was a collection of public domain DoD images. Wikimedia is not a web directory and the content could be added to Commons if it added any value to the article. User:ViperNerd appears to think because they are not on commons and it is not his/her job to move them to commons then the link should stay. But despite the link being removed a number of times User:ViperNerd continues to revert the removals on this and the B-2 article. Please note that as well as the above the link is one of links to be avoided #11. MilborneOne (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Compromise I suggested at B-2 that we should add the official air force image gallery to the site http://www.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=40 which has more than enough official images to cover any need. This would avoid linking and providing traffic to an amateur website. This would also give time for anybody who wants to to move some to Commons. MilborneOne (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a fair compromise to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. --McSly (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that's a reasonable way to go. ViperNerd (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ban on exports

Why Japan stick to F-22

1)Financial Ministry's 350 Fighters Only Cap,because of twice labor cost as much as other OECD country's troops.

• I'm live in Tokyo. Unfortunately Japan is oriented byLDP =Keidanren(keiretsu)=Beaurocrats complex's origarcy,Keidanren(keiretsu) donate money to LDP and let them decrease income tax and corporate tax.As the result of "Tax dodging" of Keidanren(keiretsu) Japanese goverment sunk in $9.8 Trillion deficit. 6times as much as US. And Japanese beaurocrat's saraly is alomost twice as much as other OECD country's public servant's saraly,at present.
• As the result of $90,000 cost of each troops, over 40% of Japanese defence budget absorved by labor cost of the troops/officers.
• JASDF have 45000Troops and 400 fighters. Each fighter need 70 staff(include indirect staff).70staff's 40years labor cost is $252Million
  • CaseA OneF22+80Troops =Cost$527Million ($275million+$252million)
  • CaseB TwoF35s+160Troops=Cost$724Million( $110millionx2+$504million)
  • CaseA can save $197million

2)Military balance of FarEast rough figure is as follows

• Land Troops(Thousand) China1600 NK1000 US650 SK500 Russ.430 Twn220 Jpn.160
• Tanks Russ.21000 China7000 US7000 NK3000 SK2000 Twn900 Jpn.600
• Fighters US2600 China1700 Russ.1600 Twn.400 NK380 SK380 Jpn.350
• Pacific Amphibious Tank transportation ability US450 China420 Russ.80 Jpn30 SK10
• Pacific submarine China60 US48 Russ.30 NK22 SK20 Jpn16
• If China/Korea say "F-22 change military balance" it is just Propaganda under the balance for above.

List of countries by size of armed forces

3)JSDF is a defending force and they need F4/F-15"INTERCEPTOR's" replacement

• Japan have 300 intercepters(F-4/F-15) and 100 anti-ship attackers(Mitsubishi F-2) and Mitsubishi F-2s are not so aged.
• F-35 is a multirole fighter but an attacker charactor aircraft, which suits to replace Mitsubishi F-2 .

4）Russian/Chinese fighters can not bombing NY but capable to Bombing Tokyo. So main potential threat for Japan is not terolist but 2Big Powers of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

• And Japan and South Korea and Taiwan surrounded by Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Russia's Militaly power have decreased but China's Military Power is arising. China have built world No2 amphibious freet,it is not threat for US but serious threat for Taiwan and Japan.

5)In far east there are 2Pair of devided country which seek unification like Vietnum.

• In 2003 China and North Korea uniratrally aimed 1300 missiles to South Korea, Taiwan and Japan.In 2009 it increased over 2000 missiles more than 1845 SS20s which Soviet Union aimed to Europe at European Cold War era. And more than 1.5million troops are still alarting beside DMZ of Korean peninsula. And North Korean old nationalist generals cannot accept south oriented unification and runnning on the road of Nuke armament. Legacy cold war still exist in far east, becuse of two divided country.

6)How Taiwan and South Korea and Japan asked them, North Korea and China have not Stopped their military expansion.

• Because of huge deficit of the goverment,Japan really hoped mutual disarmament but no chioce.

Merit for US employment and Trade deficit

• If pentagon finish development of "Confidential Part Delited Water downed export variant of F-22" until 2014-2018,and if congress aprove to build 60around F-22s for "bridging production",F-22 export Japan business can susutain 25000 direct employment and 70000poeople's indirect jobs,until 2030-2040. If Israel or Australia order it then employment will be increase.
• In 2007 US Trade deficit to Japan is $82billion,US grobal arm export is $7.5billion. 200 F-22s+150 F-35s value is $74billion

Development cost collection for US taxpayers

• F-22s development cost is $28billion. and unit procument cost is $142million. And US quoted Japan "Water downed Variant development cost" $2.3billion which Japan should pay,Unit salling price $233million per unit, for first lot 40 F-22s.($9.3 billion for 40 F-22s). That mean US taxpayer can recollect F-22's development cost,$91million($233million-$142million)per unit export. If US sell 200 F-22s then US taxpayers can correct $18.2 billion(200x$91million) by FMS. So it is strange Mr Gates complain to $8.5billion 60 F-22s bridge order investments for getting $18.2 billion export revenue for US Taxpayers. If pentagon report"Export is possible"then US Taxpayers can get 60 F-22s by FREE and more over can collect $9.7billion.

Sukhoi PAK FA and J-XX

• F-22 is too eary born than her rivals but even if Soviet Union collupted,Russia still capable to develop & equip & export F-22's rival.And rising China also have been developping her indignus 5th Gen. Twin engine Stealth fighter J-XX by using world No2 military expenditure.
• In 2009 Russia start fright test of Sukhoi PAK FA and it will be deployed 2012-2015. J-XX are said to be deployed 2015-2020. If US only build 187 F-22s and close it's production line at 2009,and 2009-2015 Russia and China will start fright test of Sukhoi PAK FA and J-XX.And if they deploy 400-600 each Sukhoi PAK FA and J-XX,US may lose global air power superiority.
• There are no"stealth fighter mutual disarmament treaty". And China's production cost is much cheaper than OECD countries. At least US need to be wach out how many Sukhoi PAK FA and J-XX will be built, before rush to close F-22s production line.
• That's why airfoce General mentioned "close production line at only 187 F-22s is risky, 247 F-22s still moderate risky." --Jack332 (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Even if I pasted Citation some left people continue to revert it. Cited article is not OR. And it is Vandalism to delite inconvenient article without discussion. Wikipedia is Not a propaganda board for left people. If you need more citation pls point out then I will paste citation because I'm not writing OR. --Jack332 (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

OR/synthesis or not it appears to give undue weight to Japan's needed/wants and is far from well written, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

First off, your english is not nearly polished enough to be editing articles on English Wikipedia. Not a knock on you or any other person with this issue, it's just the way it is. Second, you're not helping your case by using the anonymous IP 202.239.229.7 to try to add this material. Familiarize yourself with WP:SOCKPUPPET. ViperNerd (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi If I have intention to do WP:SOCKPUPPET I will never use My ID. I never do such unfair trick. And I don't think I need to do. If US Export "Confidential part delited F-22" then US taxpater can gain more revenue than Shut down F-22's line now. And L&M's 25000 labor can keep stable employment and 70000 indirect labor can keep their Job. And even Russia/China equip hundreds of twin engine stealth fighter in the near future, US can react smoothly, need not lose air power superiority. I'm honestly recommending. I think it is not the question of Democrats supporter or GOP supporter but the question of US supporter or China/Russia supporter. Of course I support US,I hope US global air power superiority,and I hope US-Japan taxpayer's mutual revenue. Which do you support? ViperNerd? Anyway I hope US NewsPaper need to double check which way is more profitable for US Taxpayes, 1)Immidiately line stop & lose $18.2billion export revenue OR 2)Invest $8.5billion for bridge production and get $18.2billion export revenue. And I will paste citation for proof, what ever you request me. --Jack332 (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As stated above - this is not a discussion forum, and neither is the article. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia and state facts that come from reliable sources, not personal opinion, no matter how honestly held, or how good an idea continuing production seems to be to individual editors. Much of what you are posting is opinion or original research and does not seem to be backed by reliable sources. Reversion of this is not political bias but conformance with Wikipedia's core values.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The content you recently added makes no connection to the F-22 Rator. It needs to be relevant to F-22 to be covered in this article. Specifics for the Sukhoi PAK FA and J-XX belong in those articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] F-22 Stealth is a fraud

Apparently the suit has yet to be filed. This moves it below the notability requirement at this moment.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/06/ex-lockheed-engineer-sues-lock.html "The document shown below is a draft copy of a lawsuit expected to be filed later this week." Hcobb (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the article this links to DOES NOT SAY THAT THE STEALTH OF THE F-22 IS A FRAUD, it just says that Lockheed allegedly used some defective stealth coatings instead of the real stealth coatings. Let me guess, the person who wants this article be used as proof that the F-22 has no stealth is a jealous European or Russian, and is thus, like many biased people on Wikipedia, looking for ANY article they can find on the web that they can skew into making the aircraft a fraud, thereby enhancing the prestige of their own nation's aircraft?68.164.6.249 (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"Fraud" is the OPINION of one disgruntled ex-employee fired by Lockheed a decade ago. Not a huge surprise that someone with an axe to grind would make unsubstantiated CLAIMS against his former employer and then file a lawsuit. I think I'll wait until all the facts are in before I line up behind this guy. Even after the suit is filed, this person's claims still will not be notable for an encyclopedic article until some facts are presented to support his case. ViperNerd (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I draw the line here between preparing to sue and actually having a case a judge has accepted. Once it is active in the courts it does become notable one way or another. Hcobb (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, a case accepted before a judge is not necessarily notable. I'm sure the spat between my former landlord and myself made the judge cringe at my landlord's arrogance, but it isn't notable. If the case is resolved and has widespread implications, it would certianly be notable, but not until. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as one has "standing", it isn't very difficult to put a case before a judge, and just because the judge thinks a case should go to trial DOES NOT mean he necessarily thinks the case has truth to it, just that he/she thinks the filer has "standing" and there is POSSIBLY an issue of law at stake.68.164.6.249 (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The reference is a Blog so doesnt meet verifiable either! MilborneOne (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• True. The same site/publisher put out an article on that today. Ex-F-22 engineer to sue FWiW -Fnlayson (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's still the same single source with nobody else stepping up to collaborate him so it's still under the radar. (Pun intended.) Hcobb (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It would have to be under the radar, cause it sure isn't stealthy... (double pun intended) :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to the CAG?

Anybody know what happened with this group?

http://www.f-22raptor.com/news_view.php?nid=292&yr=2007 A new U.S. “capabilities assessment group” — composed of Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Office of the Secretary of Defense and industry officials — has launched a comprehensive review of Japan’s fighter requirements. That group will deliver a formal recommendation to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and eventually President Bush on which American-made war plane Washington should pitch to Tokyo.

Adm. Timothy Keating, commander, U.S. Pacific Command, said he has passed his recommendation that the Raptor not be sold to Japan to that study team. Hcobb (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Further procurement and proposed end of production

Does any other editor besides me think that this section is getting out of control? Does an encyclopedic article on a subject really need to contain a running list of every comment made by a general, congressman, senator, etc. before a Congressional committee or in a white paper? Not to mention that some editors appear to be using the section to promote a fairly obvious anti-Raptor POV agenda. I think the entire section needs to be carefully examined and made more concise to improve its relevance to the article as a whole. ViperNerd (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the section does not need to list so many comments and quotes, and needs to be much more consise. Enough time has passed that one could probably convey the relevant info. HCobb seems to use his edit summaries to summarize the contents of the material he adds, rather than just to explain the what or why of his edits. I am not certain they always represent his own point of view, as I believe he does the same with both sides of the arguments in articles he edits. But I could be wrong on that observation, as I haven't taken the time to run through his edit summaries right now. - BilCat (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The section is getting into a lot of detail on Congressional budget moves. Probably too much to be notable overall. I trimmed back some info. Things can be cut down more when the final budget is passed. Looks like both sides of additional procurement have been presented. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There does seems to be some bias in his additions in other sections. In this diff, he added "However the F-22 will still lack the helmet mounted cueing system that allows the F-35 to dominate in high off-bore sight dogfights", followed by this source: Sharpening the Raptor's talons. The sense of phrase in italiacs (which I added) is not found anywhere in the article, which never mentions the F-35. One rarely hears of the F-35 being considered able to dominate any dogfight, and in fact generally hears quite the opposite. Interesting. - BilCat (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It does mention the lack of the helmet cueing system and the F-35 does have that (and the sensors to use it). I'll go dig up my ref on off-boresight advantage in dogfights and move that part to a separate section here about F-22 limitations. Hcobb (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC) And there is one other wrinkle in this pie. The F-22's primitive IR sensors can only detect missile launches and not track aircraft all around it, but it may be able to make off-boresight attacks if another aircraft (perhaps a wingman F-22 with a radar lock or a F-35 running silent) provides targeting data. I've found references that this is under development for other platforms, but I'll keep looking to see what the plans for the F-22 are. Upgrading the F-22's IR sensors to a full DAS would of course fix the problem, but then it would need to upgrade the processors to F-35 levels. Hcobb (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is that adding that type of comment without direct support from the cited source or another one is OR. Anyway, all the issues could be fixed with a proper upgrade, and that costs money - something the current adminsitration prefers to spend on other things. And I don't mean F-35s! Those will probably be cancelled in due time, as it's costs aren't coming down either. In the meantime, Japan seems to be willing to pay full price for F-22s, and the government won't sell them to one of our most important and trusted allies! Even though selling more F-22s would bring the overall pice down to where the USAF could afford a few more. Go figure. - BilCat (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Here I am putting in almost direct quotes from major American publications and these edits are being rejected for "Anti-Raptor POV"? Is it the American mainstream media that is too anti-Raptor or is it just reality? Hcobb (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't think American newspapers write stories with particular slants and bias? Wow, I'd like to live in your fantasy world. The fact is that every aircraft (especially newly fielded ones with new technology) in the inventory of every air force on the planet has maintenance issues and "limitations", but I don't see you scouring the internet for sources about any of those and adding them to any other articles except the F-22. Hmm...wonder why that is? We get that you think the Raptor is a terrible aircraft and the F-35 is going to be the best plane the USAF has ever flown (when it actually starts to be flown), but POV agendas are not welcome on Wikipedia. ViperNerd (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[Outdent] I see only a couple of notable problems with the section as it currently exists. One is that it reads more like a newspaper than an encyclopedia. Second – and more importantly – it begins part way into the story and the end of it is neither fully complete nor totally current (e.g., it lacks mention of the widespread criticism of Donley's and Schwarz's claim of "no military need" within the USAF or of the strength of Congressional support). I’m not quite sure how to clean up the latter without making it breach WP:UNDUE, though. The entire section needs to be more condensed, while offering broader contextual coverage, which is a real challenge here.

The debate over how many the USAF needs to have began before 183 became “the” number and the rationale for this number is nowhere addressed (not even in the Procurement section, where it is first mentioned). This was decided by Gordon England, the Secretary of Defense, against the opposition of the USAF leadership, whose opposition eventually led to the dismissal of the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. After placing a gag order on anyone in the Pentagon talking about budget planning without his approval, Robert Gates, England’s successor as SecDef, got the new SecAF, Michael Donley, and USAF CoS Norton Schwarz to announce that 187 was the “right number” and that there was “no military requirement” for more (although few others in the USAF or Congress seem to agree). ACC commander John Corley is one of several USAF leaders who has pressed for a compromise of a 240-250. Continued production toward whatever number currently has significant support in Congress, although the Obama administration has some major Democratic leaders lined up to fight the effort. The threat of a veto has been made, so there is still a lot of beer-and-chips excitement ahead. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If the Raptors were free and cost nothing to maintain then by all means we should have as many as we can find parking places for. The problem is that the out of control costs to build, maintain and upgrade the current fleet of Raptors is already causing the USAF to send older generation fighters that are being used in the wars that the nation is fighting today into early retirement. Building additional Raptors will simply force the USAF to retire all of their current fighters and so retire from the field in the Iraq and Afghanistan. Hcobb (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's kinda obvious the F-22 is the AF's red-headed step-child at the moment, whose mere existence seems to threaten the existance of the current darling, the F-35. Why else would empty arguments such as the previos post be put forth (their not original to HCobb - he's just repating them)? But F-35-lovers beware: Politics cuts both ways, and the current administration has other plans for defense money - "scalps" anyone? The F-35 is not getting any cheaper either, and it has many opponents too, many of which also make fighters. And who vetos a whole defense budget over a few F-22s? It's just a ploy, one that might or might not work. Anyway, Mark makes some good points on the way forward, but it won't matter if the newspaper-style entries don't stop. - BilCat (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's an interesting list of quotes against the F-22. (WARNING! Has refs to WaPo article.) http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/alerts/national-security/ns-f22-20090713.html Hcobb (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Puh-leese. The only people who might find that "interesting" are those who've already made up their minds that the Raptor is a waste and the F-35 is the greatest thing to take to the skies since the Wright Brothers flew at Kill Devil Hill. ViperNerd (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, ViperNerd, I can't recall that POGO has ever found a defense program that it didn't believe was a waste of taxpayer money, the F-35 included. In any case, Gentle Editors, this is degenerating into a blog thread. There actually is a credible NPOV story to be told about the F-22 and it's not being written in this thread. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This section (including minute by minute status changes) is starting to leak into the introduction "paragraph" (which will soon be big enough for its own ISBN). Can this be shortened at the top with a "this has been proposed, see below" and the congressional action pushed down to the actual section for it please? Hcobb (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reorg to fit the template?

Why not make the F-22 article fit the same template as every other jet fighter? The first step would be to use the same top level categories as say the F-104 Starfighter (1 Development,2 Design,3 Operational history ...) and move all the scattered bits of the current article under these headings. And then reorg the moved subheads until they read smoothly. Any takers? Hcobb (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the page follows the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content, apart from the fact that Accidents/Incidents should be before Aircraft on Display and I have just fixed that. MilborneOne (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The main sections are all there. Just a lot of subsections under them. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

But the subsections wind up in strange places. For example "YF-22 to F-22" under operational history? Hcobb (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Some content should be moved, but most of that section is about designation and name changes. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Developmental crashes go under dev, see: F-100_Super_Sabre —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcobb (talk • contribs) 22:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Depends, but whatever. The name and designation stuff has next to nothing to do with Development however. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Defense Daily

Is there a page for Defense Daily? We seem to quote them a lot so they must be notable. Hcobb (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Maintenance issues and Controversies

I had what I thought was a lot of knowledge of the F-22, including first-hand experience, but I was blown away by a Washington Post article on the maintenance issues of the F-22. Yesterday I checked this wikie and found no mention of the maintenance issues, so I added it. Then another user deleted every *referenced* fact I added and called them "biased" (a fact can be biased?) and "redundant" (there is no other mention of any of the facts I added). The facts included the cost of maintenance according to the SecDef, the average time between critical failure, susceptibility to rain and abrasion, flight readiness, and the need to hand-fit pieces.

I agree that one sentence I added does sound biased "The F-22 has not flown a single sortie in Iraq or Afghanistan, so actual battle data is not available." but I added that as an explanation as to why the data is from exercises. Perhaps someone could clarify that for me, or I will attempt to.--Skintigh (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Raptor has indeed flown on non-exercise missions where the remote possibility of armed conflict was very real. These missions have however been flown out of bases in the United States. Can we add a Bear intercept photo to the main page as a memorial to this brave combat history? Hcobb (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The maintenance cost data can be considered against WP:Air project policy. See WP:Air guidelines, Operating costs. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have had a similar problem. I added a controversy section complete with non biased source citations, spent the better part of three hours writing it only to have the whole section deleted 15 minutes after I posted it. There *is* controversy over this program, and a non biased article would have that information. EricLeFevre (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's POV-pushing, plain and simple, and it's not welcome on Wikipedia. 65.188.37.65 (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel you brother, as I've had similar experiences editing B-2 Spirit, especially in regards to my edits on its astronomical costs, issues over "procurement costs" vs. "air vehicle costs." Here's an example of the kind of knucle-dragging, opposing editors I had to deal with at B-2 Spirit, though its quite theoretically possible there are different breeds of editors lurking here with similar amounts of structured time on their hands to edit this article...

"...I have no fucking clue who Askari Mark is, but unless he writes my paycheck or joins in the conversation, what you say he says is 100% immaterial to this discussion. Add whatever figures you want, but you are not going to get away with suppressing the properly referenced and wholly accurate airframe cost on my watch. Add the dozen figures and any amortization you want, but don't suppress. The $737M figure is the important one as is the $2.2B one. Tweak whatever fucking numbers you want inbetween to your heart's content but that won't help anybody's understanding of the article. (further reading at Talk:B-2_Spirit/Archive_1#Price_Per_Plane.2F.22Procurement.22_costs). CriticalChris 17:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I hadn’t seen that one before, but it’s all too common, I’m afraid. Anyone who “knows the ABSOLVTE TRVTH!!” is not about to be derailed by contrary facts or viewpoints – and people can be surprisingly and aggressively confident about things they “have no fucking clue” about. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ, I can link right now about 10,000 articles with a controversy section on Wikipedia. Lets establish some facts. 1There are a lot of people opposed to this (former Pres. Bush, Pres. Obama, Sec. Gates, Chairmen of the joint chiefs, Sec. of the Airforce, Sen. McCain, and Sen. Levin just to name a few off the top of my head) 2. Wikipedia is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and 3. Not stating the views of those opposed to this project would flatly violate NPOV. Since you are on a NPOV crusade, I would recommend that you visit the tens of thousands of articles that have controversy sections and delete them all. EricLeFevre (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:OSE 83.242.226.130 (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored EricLeFevre (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, this is your last warning from me here on this talk page, one more reverting and I will report you for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edit_warring . From glancing at your talk page I can see you have been repeatedly warned about edit warring. Please stop. EricLeFevre (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have had the same user repeatedly delete my facts for being "biased" and "covered other places" when they are mentioned no where else. I started this discussion to talk about it but he would rather continue his vandalism. How do I report abusing users such as this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.78.227 (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Having taken a look at the proposed "Controversies" section, I have to take exception to the claim that it was full of "non-biased source citations". Every claim quoted was an opinion from a source with an anti-F-22 position, and no rebuttals from supporters. There was nothing NPOV about it. The Maintenance section is better balanced, although most of the problems cited are sourced to a single Washington Post article. Given that its sources are anonymous or have a fish to fry, that makes it a thin reed for reliability. It should also be kept in mind that WaPo is well-known for publishing spin from anonymous insiders in the government. As the article itself notes, "Sensitive information about troubles with the nation's foremost air-defense fighter is emerging in the midst of a fight between the Obama administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress over whether the program should be halted next year at 187 planes….". Since the SecDef himself is against more F-22s, anonymous material coming out of DoD that gives support to his preference should be taken with eyes fully open.

I would also like to point out that in the sentence reading, "However, the Washington Post reported the aircraft skin is vulnerable to rain and abrasion, which partly accounts for the average flight time of 1.7 hours before critical failure" the last clause is misleading; in fact, it's original research in that it draws two different WaPo sources together for an original conclusion. The Post article mentions the skin sensitivity issue and attributes it to a variety of sources (cf. that article's 2nd para.). The portion about 1.7 average hours flying time between critical failures comes from – as WaPo expressly points out – "a Defense Department critic of the plane who is not authorized to speak on the record" [emphasis added]. That source does not appear to have provided any substantiating evidence, so it's just his say-so, as an F-22 opponent. We also don't know what kind of "critical failure" it is (e.g., mission-critical or any failure at all), or whether his figure is from early in the program or recent. Frankly, if we are to keep it, we should find a better, more reliable source than a passing-along of hearsay by an admittedly biased and safely anonymous individual. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Finally an editor I can have a discussion with. I glanced at your talk page, edit history and such. Before I say anything else, I would like to state that I too am a Mechanical and Aerospace Engineer (currently completing my last year of schooling, I will sit for the EIT exam this coming spring). Given my experience in the field and given your edit history it is readily apparent that you either work in the Aerospace industry or for a subcontractor that does work in that industry. You present a specific and unique viewpoint on this matter. The problem is that you assume that your view point is the only view point. More background for me, I am a four year high school debator, and have also spent many, many hours pouring over argumentation and logic. Yes that background is important.

The sources you claim that are "unbiased" come directly from industry groups that make parts for the plane. That in and of itself presents a clear conflict of interest as those groups have a direct financial incentive to convince people that this plane is needed. You attack as "biased" every single source that disagrees with that industry assessment. For an FYI, the WaPo, NYTimes both maintain massive editorial staff whose sole purpose is to fact check their reporters and sources, certainly they slip up every now and then but no one is perfect. Flagrantly biased sources such as the Citizens Against Government Waste and The Nation represent biased sources, but on opposite sides of the US ideological spectrum. We have a truely unbiased source (Sec Gates), a liberal biased source (The Nation), a conservative biased source (Citizens Against Government Waste) and two of the world's leading newspapers (WaPo and NYTimes) all coming out against this project. You claim bias, so the burden of proof is on you to explain in this discussion thread why those sources would want to have this program terminated.

That is criticism that crosses every bias of the US political system. Yet you sit here today, declare that none of them have a right to be heard and actively seek to prevent those voices from being heard. That is called censorship. I will restore that section one more time, if it is deleted again I am going to report that editor for vandalism. EricLeFevre (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Your background on the high school debate team could not be less important to this project, as Wikipedia is not a debate contest. If you insist on adding material against consensus by way of edit warring (as you've already done), you will be the one who finds themselves being reported for violation of Wikipedia policy. I'd suggest you read up some more on what Wikipedia is, because you've clearly got some false assumptions. 65.188.37.65 (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No one is saying that Wiki is a debate contest. That background is important because of the insights it gives to argumentation and logic. All sources are biased. I would highly, highly recommend that you read some of the articles about wikipedia that you keep posting. Here are some of my favorite parts.

"Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.

I suggest that you read, re-read, and read again the part that I italicized. EricLeFevre (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh and linking the article from the WaPo is not original research. Original research is scholar A doing a study then either publishing it on wikipedia or writing a book then writing a wiki about his own research. Situation here, a squad commander outlined why the F-22 sucks and shouldn't be used, so he leaks to the WaPo who verifies his info and writes a story about it. The story is not original research as it referenced documents authored by Lockheed Martin. Another example of trying to squelch opposing views EricLeFevre (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

@ EricLeFevre: Yes, I am an aerospace engineer with three decades of experience, having worked with two major defense aerospace firms, for the U.S. Air Force, and as a consultant to the DoD (on a non-aerospace but systems-engineering-related program.) My primary responsibility these days is to sift through extensive, incomplete, conflicting, partially mal-informed, heavily politicized, and marketeer-spun material to determine "ground truth" and to identify and project the impacts of long-term trends in the global defense aerospace sector. So, while I did not participate on a debate team during my school years, I am nevertheless very experienced in sifting through bias and minimizing its footprint in my analyses. As for the F-22 particularly, whether the program is extended or curtailed at 187 makes no difference to me and I expect the outcome will have no impact on me. What is important to me here is that the edit warring cease and a consensual and NPOV outcome is reached.

That said, I do have to point out that the strawman against which your polemic your polemic is addressed bears no relation to what have written in this thread. It is, for instance, your own – boldly incorrect – assumption that "[I] assume that [my] view point is the only view point." You obviously do not know me and are unfamiliar with my body of work on Wikipedia. I do think, though, that I can fairly claim that I have greater expertise than the average Wikipedian in those area in which I am a subject-matter expert. [You will find out eventually, though, that the average Wikipedian does not hold experts in awe – nor should they.]

To address your other specific points succinctly,

• Nowhere in this thread have I identified "sources [I] claim that are 'unbiased'", much less any that "come directly from industry groups that make parts for the plane."
• I have nowhere "attack[ed] as 'biased' every single source that disagrees with that industry assessment." That would take a lengthy tome, indeed, were I even slightly interested in writing one. What I objected to was that the proposed Criticism section contains only presentations of material from opponents of continued F-22 production. NPOV is not about removing bias, but rather presenting both (or all notable) sides' POVs. Yes, opposition to the F-22 comes from organizations or individuals with a wide range of positions along the political spectrum – but the same is true of its supporters! Adding a section composed solely of "anti-F-22"-biased views is not made neutral because its proponents are bipartisan politically. That is why several editors here have, not incorrectly, disparaged the proposed (unbalanced) section as POV-pushing.

As I mentioned in my original post here, the current section on Maintenance presents a much better handling (in the Wikipedia point of view) of conflicting positions. A more Wikipedia-appropriate presentation of the material issue can be – and should be – developed. (That said, I find "Criticism" sections to be objectionable magnets for collecting all sorts of criticisms which then are not presented in an NPOV manner and which quickly grow to constitute an undue proportion of the article as a whole. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Askari Mark, for disagreeing with what I posted in a logical and rational manner, rather than just deleting like some others have been doing. You may be right about the sources being biased, but the other quote about rain/abrasion is from someone who's job is a squadron commander, probably a little biased to. I left both for balance. Also, I did not realize what I had done constitutes original research, I will be more aware of that in the future. I will attempt to find another source.--Skintigh (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

@ Skintigh: It's an easy mistake to make, especially when it material taken from a single article drawing on multiple sources and not always being clear about what parts came from which. Remember: All mistakes are learning opportunities – and there are lots and lots of learning opportunities on Wikipedia!  :-) Askari Mark (Talk) 01:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Just adding my third-party opinion in favor of EricLeFevre. The Washington Post is probably one of the best sources you could have as far as news goes; the F-22 obviously has maintenance and cost issues, the recent Senate budget cuts only helps to confirm that. Not including such issues when they have been featured prominently on a major, third-party news source like the Post smacks of censorship. -Falcon8765 (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

@ Falcon8765: The issue is not one of whether or not the Washington Post is a credible, responsible, and reliable source – it is. Nonetheless, that does not excuse us from responsibly handling material sourced from it. Are news articles, op-eds and advertisements all equally reliable sources (per Wikipedia's definitions of it)? Obviously not. One of the things that makes WaPo reliable is that they provide information on the quality and reliability of their sources. One of the WaPo articles I addressed earlier uses a DoD source that WaPo was required to keep anonymous. Well, that could be anyone from the janitor to the SecDef himself. We don't know. But the journalist who wrote the article made clear that the source was an "F-22 critic"; to wit, it identified his bias, which is the responsible thing for a journalist to do. To the intelligent reader, it's a warning to treat the source's claims cautiously – which is what responsible Wikipedia editors should do. If the blogs and personal websites of known individuals are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia, then how can an anonymous source with a known agenda but without any hard evidence be more reliable source than they? That is one of the matters that is at dispute here. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

While op-ed material from WaPo, NYT, San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, etc. may not be "reliable," the news reporting in these publications is distinct from the opinion pieces as per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations. The news stories from these neo-con/neo-lib publications, like them or not, are considered the most reliable sources available to us, as per WP:RS. It's my considered opinion that anyone who is attempting to challenge the use of a NEWS source/NEWS article from one of these dead tree publications is fighting an uphill battle here. They are dying on the vine and going out of business right and left, but while they're still around, until WP policy changes, they are considered the most credible sources available to us. And oh one more thing, to anonymous IP address editor 65.188.37.65, the notion of WP:CONSENSUS can evolve here, as other editors join the fray. CriticalChris 17:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You will find that most of the big claims have been rinsed through the CBO and CRS which manage to retain NPOV while having every line reviewed by the services. Hcobb (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No one is debating the reliability of the sources, but that doesn’t excuse irresponsible handling of unreliable information in those sources. Mistakes, for instance, occur all the time (and get “regretted” in subsequent issues, if on paper). The use of an “anonymous critic” by a reporter as a source doesn’t mean we can’t use the article, but it does oblige us to point out in our article that the specific material used is from such an origin. Furthermore, in line with Hcobb’s point, when one RS reports on material from another RS, it’s better for us to use the latter than the former. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Does this count as a reliable source? http://www.afa.org/edop/2009/edop_7-13-09.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.117.2 (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's still selective. So I'd rather rely on Bolkcom and ... Say what! The main CRS F-22 paper ref got deleted again! Good grief. Hcobb (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

CRS RL31673 is used as a reference (ref. # 71), so it should not be repeated in the Ext. links section. Check the article first... -Fnlayson (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And it's being used for one tiny part of the paper while other issues in the article are covered (silently now once again) in this paper. Hcobb (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• So get WP:External links adjusted. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Looks like the "controversy" won -- Senate scraps plane

Someone needs to update the article to reflect its ellmination of the F-22 from the budget. http://slate.com/id/2223287/ This will, of course, require that the controversy section be revamped as well, as the political significance of the senate action is quite large. See Slate's article [1] Best regards, Ortolan88 (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The F-22 program remains in the FY2010 budget and we will be spending Chinese money on it for the next several decades. This will of course be to keep the existing ones flying an not for the purchase of new ones. Hcobb (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It ain't dead quite yet. Since the House added money for more F-22, it now goes to conference for more horse-trading. If it doesn't make it out of that, it's over; if it does make it out, then we get to wait to see whether the President indeed wields his veto. (If he does, then the whole bill goes back to Congress for another round of political fun-and-games.) Askari Mark (Talk) 03:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Never used in war

Someone really does need to inject some reality into this article. Has anyone asked why the Raptor has never been used in Afganistan or Iraq? Maybe the fact that the US military has repetedly said it does not want it. Keeping it going has more to do with jobs than any potential for future imaginary air combat. Zuber5 (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe the fact that by the time the Raptor entered service, air superiority was not an issue in Afghanistan or Iraq. By 2005, most combat aircraft sorties in these theaters were for close air support. In the future, try using some common sense before adding your rants to a talk page. Thanks. ViperNerd (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That's kind of an abrasive response, Viper. Is it really necessary to insult the poster? -Falcon8765 (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but there has been entirely too much POV-pushing on this article lately, patience grows short and it becomes difficult to assume good faith when a newly registered user's first edit on Wikipedia is an ignorant POV post on this Talk page. This is not an internet forum for discussion of the merits of the F-22 project, it's a forum to discuss improvement of the article devoted to that aircraft. People would do well to remember that. ViperNerd (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

“The best weapon may be the one that isn't used but instead deters a conflict before it begins.” Has anybody else read the latest CRS? Hcobb (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

To address the poster’s question, there’s a very good reason why the F-22 has not been used in Iraq or Afghanistan: Neither have an air force or “double-digit” SAMs. The point derives from a statement Defense Secretary Gates made a few months ago while discussing his reasoning behind not wanting more F-22s. It underscored his belief that future wars are going to be more like these current conflicts, for which the F-22 is not necessary, than more traditional scenarios with peer or near-peer opponents. Also, the USAF does want more, it’s Secretary Gates who does not; if they were in agreement, there’d be a whole lot less controversy. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] CRS link names

When naming CRS links, please use the CRS number. There is no official CRS archive site (that is available outside of Congress) so we may wind up reffing the same report from two different sources and using the numbers should make this clear. This should also apply to CBO, GAO, etc. Hcobb (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea! Askari Mark (Talk) 02:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Major Neutrality Problems with this Article

I came here to find some information and to see if the article could be used as a link as university course materials. While the article is excellent in its presentation of the plane's specifications and development history, its political and social history is severely lacking. After quickly reading through the discussion I can see that this has been a ongoing problem; a problem that this community should try to solve soon. As an encyclopeaida, especially a popular online wiki, the article needs to answer the questions of many different users who will come to this article for information. Wikipedia is not a Janes military reference book. As such, it also needs to have information about all aspects of a subject. This would include the plane's conception and design in the Cold War and why funding was proposed to be cut in the most recent DoD budget request. The controversies surrounding the plane also need to be covered, especially so since this would be one of the major motivating factors for users coming to the article at this particular moment in its history. Like I said, this is an excellent article in terms of the technical information and reference materials but it must have information about the social and political aspects, especially when the plane is so much in the news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DClearwater (talk • contribs) 17:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of that type info can not be found in an Encyclopedia. Encyclopedias and in particular Wikipedia do not cover current events like a news service. See WP:What Wikipedia is not for details or Wikinews -Fnlayson (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually there's too much of that in now. The Wa Po version of the crash has already been invalidated by the Pentagon report. Who wants to replace with the truth? Hcobb (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean that the statistics and reference material be removed. As I said, that aspect of the article is excellent. What I mean is that there has to be factual information about the social and political nature of any topic. For example, the plane's length of development (i.e. conceived at the height of the Cold War) and recent changes to U.S. military strategy essentially resulted in a reduction of its planned use and then the funding cuts (these events affect it political history). From that comes its social history (including the controversy that resulted over the proposed cut to its funding). Such information can be presented in a factual manner that will not contravene WP:What Wikipedia is not. Similarly, listing factual information about criticism of the project as a whole does not mean that the entire article is biased. In fact, leaving out information about these aspects of the plane's history could be considered as contravening neutrality. I mean, imagine the entry for the Vietnam War (or any other controversial topic) not including information about protests or changes to public opinion. Also, when I mentioned that the plane is so newsworthy right now, I did not mean that this wikipedia entry should act as a new service, but that since the plane (and its funding cuts) are in the news, it would be reasonable to assume that many people would seek information by consulting its article here. That is why there needs to be factual information about all aspects of the plane and project. --DClearwater (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, another quick remark. The current version of the article sounds like an encyclopedic entry for an aeronautical engineering reference book. Of course, that is very good. But what the article lacks, are the perspectives of other disciplines. The wikipedia entry for Encyclopedia ( Encyclopedia ), clearly defines it as "a comprehensive written compendium that holds information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." Wikipedia is general in nature so we need the approach from different disciplines or branches of knowledge. --DClearwater (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That says encyclopedias provide an wide ranging overview (comprehensive), and not provide every detail (compendium, summary). Providing details is partially where the news service part comes in (current event coverage also). -Fnlayson (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your meaning here... if no detail, then why does the article already have many details about the engineering and procurement process? I understand that too much detail (compendium, summary) might necessitate that an article is broken into smaller ones. But for an article like this one, it should not just be limited to the engineering details. It needs to be wider in scope... and this should be reflected in the major sections of the article. --DClearwater (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be asking for detailed coverage on politics, and all other matters related to the F-22. This article can't cover details on everything. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa... the current article has a heading about the public display of the aircraft so there is a lot of detail already. I don't see it as a problem that the article is heavy in favour of the history of the engineering of the aircraft, but you are asking that no other aspect of the plane/project be included. I am sorry, but that is why the neutrality of this article is missing. This plane is not just a plane, it is a part of the U.S. defense sector and a major part of Pentagon funding and U.S. gov. expenditures. Sadly, as such it gets caught up in the larger politics of U.S. society... all I am saying is that we cannot deny that fact and therefore it needs to be reflected in the content of the article. --DClearwater (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It needs to go in some article. Hopefully this article will be of broad enough scope to discuss the entire MIC and not just one fnording aircraft. Hcobb (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, yeah. Seriously though... this article has major neutrality problems. I understand that many who have contributed to the article have done an excellent job (and, more broadly, have contributed a lot to wikipedia) so I am not trying to be confrontational here. But, the scope of information on Wikipedia, goes beyond aeronautical engineering. The article needs to be more inclusive and a few other sections built, including ones that might include information not palatable to everyone. --DClearwater (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if I understand you properly, your issue is not so much with neutrality, per se, as it is with the scope of coverage. Is that correct? That's always a challenge; at some point providing context plus balancing POVs runs into another problem with trying to balance it against WP:UNDUE. Considering that pretty much all major government programs — defense and non-defense — attract controversy, debate, and cost issues, it's unclear just what to cover. It's relative easy in those cases where the issue is unique to (in this instance) the airplane because those are usually fairly clear-cut; the problem is just how much all of the timeless dove/hawk debate should one cover? Perhaps you could share, from your perspective, what 1-3 issues are most notable with respect to the F-22 — what you think the average Joe/Jane Reader might most wish to find information on here. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Askari. Yes, but it is a neutrality issue in the sense that there has been a concerted effort here to prevent any mention of public or political controversy surrounding the plane and project as a whole. As a result, the cultural significance of the plane/project has also been resisted. It could be argued that restricting the scope of an article is similar to only allowing one dominant POV. My main issue here is that the article's current focus is almost exclusively from an aeronautical/engineering perspective. If wikipedia was solely an engineering/aeronautical encyclopedia, that would be fine. But the general scope of wikipedia means that other disciplinary perspectives need to be reflected in the article; for example, political science, media studies, popular culture studies, etc. Now, that may mean that others take the lead in creating these sections but since wikipedia is a collaborative and community-driven project, that should not present a problem. With a plane as iconic as this one, there definitely needs to be a 'cultural significance' section (which could include the current 'popular culture' section). A section on the criticisms of the program (that is, dealing with politics surrounding the program) and a section on funding controversy are needed too. As long as these sections are well-written, there should be few reasonable issues with balance or providing context... but, again, all perspectives need to be represented. Again, there is already an incredible amount of detail in the article but it is from a single discipline's POV. No group or discipline should have final say about the entire scope of an article here on wikipedia. Thanks. --DClearwater (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur. -Falcon8765 (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So as you can see, the edit bias even seeps into the talk page. What can be done about this? Hcobb (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WP: mediation is needed imo. -Falcon8765 (talk) 02:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A page was started on 7/23, but the initiator never bothered to reply or sign. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

@DClearwater: Personally, I don't think the F-22 is all that "iconic" which makes it difficult for me to understand just what to do with your suggestions (which are more nebulous than I was hoping for). It's true that Wikipedia is not paper, there is an effective limit to the size of an article beyond which it engenders "reader fatigue" – which I rather suspect we're at already. This article is basically about the airplane; to cover a host of other disciplines' perspectives – and keep it within the bounds of WP:UNDUE would make the article even more unwieldy than it already is.

Despite the perceptions of some, the active editors here have never been opposed to including negative information and controversies about the F-22; indeed, much of it has already been worked into the article. As long as it's presented in a balanced, well-sourced and preferably pithy fashion, that's fine. You will have observed, though, a lot of resistance to the inclusion of a "Controversies" section. Experience here and on other articles has demonstrated that these become magnets for every sort of negative issue (notable and trivial) that can be found, only negative information is supplied with no attempt to present both sides, and they become overly long.

From what you have written, I see that you would like (ouch!) three new sections: a "cultural significance" section, one on "political issues" regarding the airplane, and another on "funding controversy". I would like to ask for more specifics and some clarifications. Regarding the first, I'm not aware of media studies or popular culture studies on the F-22; are there are some seminal ones you could point us to? I've already partially addressed the political issues theme, insofar as using a "Controversies" section per se; I'd appreciate your thoughts on a specific few you think most notable – as opposed to those issues simply endemic to major government (and particularly defense) programs. (I would suspect the politics of ending the program would be one – and we are already incorporating that.) As for the third, what specific "funding controversy" (or controversies) are you referring to? Thanks for your taking the time, Askari Mark (Talk) 03:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

@Askari: sorry, I have to be brief here. Honestly, one only has to look over the past discussions and edits to see that there has been an (informal?) effort here to limit the wiki page to just what is already there. I can even see a pattern that whenever a discussion of anything that might appear as negative comes up, it is quickly minimized away ('the article is too long already,' 'its a magnet for criticism,' or by simply posting one sentence replies that point to entire wiki-articles or definitions about POV or whatever). I do agree that some of the past information was not neutral in its wording but that only means that the wording has to be edited. Instead, these sections have been deleted. As for the 'iconic' status of the plane... of course, its iconic and very high profile. That is why there are multiple videogames entirely devoted to the plane itself... and this is a part of its cultural significance (which is not all negative BTW). "What funding controversies?" You're kidding right? --DClearwater (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, not kidding. There are and have been a number of funding controversies regarding the F-22. Whether to fund further production is just one – and since it’s being addressed already and you seemed to be suggesting a funding controversy not being covered here. (By the way, whenever it is decided to end further production, there will be another controversy over which shut-down approach to follow and how much that costs. For instance, if there will be a need to hold onto items for further production – possibly for Japan – then that requires a different approach than a total shutdown and is more expensive.)

I’d dispute your perception that there has been an (informal) attempt to keep negative information out of this article; if it were true, then it would be hard to explain how any has made it in. Whether we agree on how iconic the F-22 might be, I think we’d both agree that this article attracts a very high degree of vandalism. Some attempts to add cited negative information may have been accidentally interpreted as such. On the other hand I’ve noted that when such editors have been invited to add properly cited negative material along with properly cited contrary views, nothing of the sort ever appears ... all that remains is griping by same that they didn’t get their (uncited or unreliably) negative material in. That tends to be a clear sign of POV-pushing; after all, it’s not that hard to find and provide such balanced information ... if one desires to. That invitation is a standing one and it's a good one for editors to hone their NPOV skills on.

In any case, I think your real beef is with those who aren’t the regular editors. Please note the quick removal of “negative” material Hcobb and I put in. None of those removing them were regulars. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

@Hcobb. My apologies Hcobb... I honestly thought your comment was meant for the Raptor-SuperHornet discussion below as it seemed to make more sense there. My bad. --DClearwater (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

After having a chance to thoroughly read the arguments and points here, I have to agree with user DClearwater, and Falcon 8765, on the above issues. Also, some of us are inspired by the possibility that this article could become more credible and reach next class at some point not too far in the future, yet, edits to include information on it's political and procurement controversies have been reverted at almost every turn. For example, Hcobb just vaporized some sourced material on a congressional vote, an edit I don't believe is very inclusive or appropriate. This article will never have the degree of encyclopedic dimension that the B-2 Spirit article has with such edits. It seems there's no clear consensus here so far on keeping the article in the style of a "Janes military reference book" or "aeronautical engineering reference book," and to be clear, it does currently smacks of such material, IMHO. That this article is listed in WP:project aircraft should not preclude or overshadow the inclusion of other notable economic and political issues. In consideration of the scope of public expenditure on this project, it's grossly lacking in comprehensive detail. Should we open an WP:Rfc on this? Or are we even deadlocked here against this question? ...that is, the question of expanding the sections on the procurement and proposed end of production. CriticalChris 17:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don’t think an RfC is called – or is going to go far – when the issue is already being discussed. Why don’t you draft a candidate text and post it here (in Talk, not in the article) to develop a consensual version? Then it can’t be “pounced on” and removed before it gets discussed – and you’ll have all the active editors here fighting to keep the final result in. As I noted above, it’s more often drive-by editors who remove material here. (Please note what happened to the paragraph Hcobb and I worked on.) [On the other hand, if you were just venting over Hcobb’s removal of the Congressional material as no longer valid, well, you are both doing the right thing discussing it here – and I’ve chimed in.] Askari Mark (Talk) 00:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I opened up an arbitration page, but owing to a busy schedule, this is the first time I have been able to do anything wiki-wise in awhile. I just read over the talk page and it seems that some of these issues still have not been resolved. I was pleasantly surprised, however, when maintenance issues finally appeared in the article, though getting those there was a fight as well. The last two issues that have yet to be resolved are A: the role that the f22 will play in current and future likely combat scenarios and B: direct comparisons with the planes that the F22 will be replacing (the F16). Both issues need to be addressed if this article is not to read like a book from Lockheed-Martin. If need be, we can take this to arbitration. EricLeFevre (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Only thing the Raptor is replacing is the F-15C and only a few of those. The F-16 replacement is the F-35, always has been and always will be. As for the F-22 mission, it's really simple. The Raptor does overwatch for the F-35 "Pigeon". Hcobb (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware either of those points was at issue. Hcobb sums it up pretty nicely, albeit somewhat understated. If that's all there is, I guess our work is done here. <jk> Except for the performance comparison, it's all in the article already (or was last time I looked). As for adding a comparison of the F-22 and F-15, I'm afraid I don't see the point. Any reader can compare the specs from the two respective articles. To add such a section while not tripping over WP:RS by quoting Wikipedia nor conducting OR, we'd have to find a source that does so. I can't recall seeing one in quite a long time – long enough ago that the performance data would not be out of date. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] External tanks

In the Armament section, the paragraph about the external hardpoints says: "The wings include four hardpoints, each rated to handle 5,000 lb (2,300 kg). Each hardpoint has a pylon that can carry a detachable 600 gallon fuel tank". But then later in the paragraph we have: "The two inner hardpoints are "plumbed" for external fuel tanks". So, we have a little contradiction there :-) McSly (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That's supposed to be the inner one on each wing (2 overall). All may be plumbed for a ferry configuration flight.. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The resolution is that it can carry four fuel tanks, but only two of these can deliver fuel to the aircraft in flight. Hcobb (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated Text, Repeated Text

Why repeat exactly the same words from the same source twice in one article? Hcobb (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Can't think of any. Why don't you "keep" the one where it most makes sense and remove or paraphrase the other? Askari Mark (Talk) 03:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Trading Raptors for Super Hornets?

Hcobb, I removed the following text because it needs further clarification and a couple of corrections before going back in:

• The effectiveness of stealth is greatly improved when combined with electronic jamming and the need for additional jammer aircraft was one reason cited by the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the termination of the F-22 production line in favor of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.^[1]

First, the clarification: Since the F-22 itself reputedly has jamming capabilities, it’s unclear why “additional jammer aircraft” are needed (or why they couldn’t be more F-22s). I think you meant to say something along the line of “when combined with standoff [or offboard] electronic jamming”.

Second, the correction. The F-22 line is not being terminated in favor of the F/A-18 Super Hornet. This statement does not accurately capture what the source says; what Gen. Cartwright said was “it was one reason for halting the Air Force’s F-22 fighter program and potentially redirecting that money toward electronic attack.” [emphasis added]. Note that he says nothing about the F/A-18 or any other aircraft – and in any case, it’s the EA-18G Growler that is the jammer. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

How about the primary source, i.e. the actual transcript?

http://armed-services.senate.gov/Transcripts/2009/07%20July/09-58%20-%207-9-09.pdf Another thing that weighed heavily certainly in my calculus was the input of the combatant commanders, and one of the highest issues of concern from the combatant commanders is our ability to conduct electronic warfare. That electronic warfare is carried onboard the F–18. And so, looking at the lines that we would have in hot production, number one priority was to get fifth generation fighters to all of the Services. Number two priority was to ensure that we had a hot production line in case there was a problem, and number three was to have that hot production line producing F– 18 Gulfs, which support the electronic warfare fight. So those issues stacked up to a solid position, at least on my part, that it was time to terminate the F–22. It is a good airplane. It is a fifth generation fighter. But we needed to proliferate those fifth generation fighters to all of the Services, and we needed to ensure that we were capable of continuing to produce aircraft for the electronic warfare capability, and that was in the F–18. In the F– 18, we can also produce front-line fighters that are more than capable of addressing any threat that we will face for the next 5 to 10 years.

So yes, the Growler killed the Raptor. QED. Hcobb (talk) 04:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's taken me a month to let the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have his say about the Raptor, so let's see how long that stays in there. Hcobb (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, that line of reasoning seems to go more like 'DEQ' than 'QED'. I'm not sure how Cartwright came up with the idea of shutting down a hot production line (that is the only extant hot fifth-gen line to boot) "to ensure that that we had a hot production line in case there was a problem", but that is what the man said. (He also has two "point two's" – I'm definitely not letting him teach my kids math.) In any case, the fact that EW was only "another thing" (after the first 2 – or 3 – points) hardly hand Death's scythe to the F/A-18. If you don't mind, I'm going to tweak that paragraph – which is actually a rather long run-on sentence – to get it closer to what Cartwright testified. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And every fnording word about the advantages of the F-35 over the F-22 for the USAF went poof. This from a gang that is trying to cover their tracks on the talk page by deleting their own autosigs. What more proof of bias is needed? Tell me. Hcobb (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the reasons given for the cancellation lasted one day until a sockpuppet smashed it. Is there anybody here who is the least bit surprised? Hcobb (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No, but the good thing about Wikipedia is that no vandalized material is ever truly lost. I've reinserted the most recent version. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Day by day Congressional debate

What's the historical relevance of the day by work in Congress before they even close to a bill? Giving undue notice to these low level events in a POV violation. Nothing has changed since the 187 number was decided on. Hcobb (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me sir, there's nothing that's --not-- notable about a vote of our elected representatives in the United States Congress, especially not one covered in the mainstream news media. We could put a current event template in the section if there are a number of different votes on amendments, and things change rapidly to the point where it's confusing to follow, but the votes belong there for now, IMHO. Now if there are a dozen or more votes on this bird, they don't all deserve their own paragraph, per se, but each vote or groupings of votes could be reduced to a well-sourced clause in a sentence, for example, if editors at that time feel that's appropriate. Bottom line, what our Congress decides on this is entirely significant to its long-term development and strategic deployment into the future, and how that might affect the development of other aircraft and defense systems, or how it might shape our foreign policy and efforts to project US military force around the globe. CriticalChris 17:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Chris. Removal of the information prior to the resolution bill making it out was premature. However, Hcobb is correct that there was no real or implied claim that the F-35 is all-around superior to the F-22. What has been said is that the F-22 is superior to the F-35 in air-to-air (and SEAD, per some), but the F-35 is more flexible in that it is a multirole aircraft with excellent air-to-air and air-to-surface capabilities. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] If we had a F-22 vs F-35 page

Should such a page exist I'd list out the various factors from all the sources every which way.

For example on SEAD we have supercruise against time sensitive targets as an advantage for the F-22 vs the F-35's ability to track launchers as they fire (much better IR) and instantly strike back. (DEAD SAMs).

Both platforms lack the ability to stealthily carry the AARGM so there is a capability gap until we get some sort of super AMRAAM upgrade. Hcobb (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

--

All that's needed is more on the Air Dominance role of the F-22. The F-35A/C does not have any special advantage in BVR combat over 4 and 4.5 gen fighters except for its stealth characteristics, which are compramised when carrying external stores. Sensor fusion is helpful when there are other workloads, but on the offensive a conventional fighter pilot will not be any slower launching on targets in a MIG-29 assuming his systems have already detected targets. When it is all the pilot is focused on and he/she is well-trained, sensor fusion is a luxury, allowing less concentration, even laziness. Nice, but doesn't necessarily win the fight. Most of the research on JSF's air combat effectiveness is based on dogfighting, but the fact is even a Harrier will beat most aircraft in a dogfight. Removing the VTOL, the F-35 is only as effective as the pilot and the weapons he's got in a close-in fight. And if both sides have off-boresight, they might as well eject after launching in the merge. Because they'll both be dead otherwise. The F-22 cruises at high altitude, very fast, has more range, and thus the kenematics of its medium range missiles are greatly enhanced. U.S. AAM technologies have ALWAYS trailed the Russians. The whole point of the F-22 was to allow us to use (in some ways inferior) AMRAAMs and still beat top-line MIG and SU fighters of the future. The fact that the F-35 is an attack aircraft that can fill an air superiority role with a small loadout does not nullify that it is NOT air dominance capable against any potential future air threat. Now, 187 aircraft is no small potatoes, but this article and the F-35's when taken together are making biased and unsubstantiated cases that F-22's are not a prudent thing to have around at all.

And do any of you have a clue how the Nazis started out, with anti-western indoctrination youth camps? Putin's been pulling the same stuff. A whole generation of brown shirts for the 21st century. And he created a new position just so he'd stay in the top leadership of his country. Scary stuff. Now the Russian navy has proved it can still deploy its subs all the way to the U.S. Rumsfeld said, "you don't fight with the military you want, you fight with the military you have." Well, what you're going to have in the future is decided first in the past and present. And there's something of a conflict of interest, you have to admit, in having a former DCI put in charge of the military and saying technology is less important than HUMINT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.139.76 (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The case was not being made that another 500 F-22s were required to prevent WWIII, only that it was rational to spend $2 billion (chump change in the Pentagon budget) to slowly build a few more to keep the production line open, in case it was decided that more were needed. The opponents of the Raptor created an imaginary counter-argument that obviously they'd win against. A real discussion over the facts did not occur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.139.76 (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

-Reticuli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.139.76 (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the ref on the F-22 range? Every source I've seen gives F-35A/C more range. This is mostly because they are pudgy little underpowered flying fueltanks. Hcobb (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

F-35 has a few other tricks during a BvR fight, not to say that stealth isn't a major factor(Its a HUGE factor), the F-35's avionics suite is second only to that of the raptor. The range for example matches or excels that of the latest Eagle. As for WvR, the trick the F-35 has is the capability to use DAS to acquire, and fire at any target, in any direction, thus, negating the need to try to out turn the other. These are Huge advantages over any 4.5th generation fighter. F-35 doesn't just have off bore sight capability, but rather one that fully covers all directions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.72.2 (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Prowler comment

The last readd of the Prowler comment shows how it fails to actually tie the F-18 hot line to the F-22 production line ending. Hcobb (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is true, but the source leaves that linkage implicit, not explicit. Right now the F-22 is the most capable “escort jamming” aircraft the USAF has. There are only a few ways they can redress this: 1) buy more EC-130s and EC-135s, which aren’t really suited for this role or survivable in it; 2) continue developing the EB-52, which has just been canceled (again), isn’t ready for production, and can’t keep up with modern fighters; 3) buy more F-22s (which wouldn’t seem to be in the cards, even assuming its reputed electronic attack capability is really up to the role); or 4) purchase – or transfer funds to the Navy to buy – EA-18Gs (which would make the USAF the poster child for lèse-majesté). But Cartwright does not say funds saved from cancelling the F-22 would go to EW at all, much less to Growlers. We may have to temporarily settle for the implied approach we currently have until Cartwright provides further clarification. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The next manned USAF jammer (if any) will be the Next Generation Jammer on the F-35. (Info added on F-35 page.) Until then they'll rely on the Navy to support them out of Navy funds... Hcobb (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably, but as of yet, there is no such program of record for an EA-35. Since the Navy will only procure sufficient Growlers for their own use, there won't be any extras to support the USAF with Navy or USAF funds, unless one or the other buys them (which would quite literally take an act of Congress). Askari Mark (Talk) 02:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What we do have at the moment is the RFI, which indicates that The Navy is the lead agency for the F-35 jammer. https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=89e04cbe6efa2165df651ec98324a9fd&tab=core&_cview=0 (Putting links in the talk pages keeps them around for two weeks which is several times longer than adding actual facts to the articles...) Hcobb (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Clarifying some issues with the plane

I think it should be clarified that a) the plane has never flown a combat mission as the congress has voted to halt production (I think this is notable for a plane with these far reaching goals) ^[2], and b) that is has had issues with rain. Yes, there is a rebuttal regarding rain included, but I see no link to the counterclaim. ^[3] — Northgrove 08:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That argument is a red herring. The same could be said about modern nuclear weapons: never used, no longer in production. However, without including the context (that they are slated to be used for decades to come and that they only recently became operational...after OEF and OIF), it would be misleading. We don't need every criticism and critique. This is an encyclopedia, not an exhaustive, authoritative work. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree, we would be remiss (and just plain unencyclopedic IMHO) if we didn't make a good effort to include as many of the notable criticisms of this project as possible. This is especially true in the case of this article if one considers the weight and relative emphasis of all of the technical material about the aircraft that currently dominates the article.CriticalChris 19:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

However both McCain and Gates have pointed out that in the future the Raptor will only be useful in a limited set of scenarios. This is quite relevant and oft deleted from the article. Hcobb (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think comparing the F-22 to nuclear weapons is a good analogy, they are intended for completely different strategic and tactical purposes. I don't understand the repeated removal of true statements that are critical of the plane. -Falcon8765 (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. First off, it's not true that the F-22 hasn't been used in combat because the Congress has voted to discontinue production. In actuality, Gates noted – several months before Congress voted on the issue – that the F-22 hadn't been used in Iraq or Afghanistan as one of his reasons why he saw no need for further production. Now, if I had not heard it with my own two ears, I would never have believed that anyone intelligent enough to serve as a Secretary of Defense (and a former Director of Central Intelligence to boot) would say something so inanely irrelevant – not to mention that detracts from his message by bringing into question the amount of thought that went into his other points. Think about it folks: what is being offered as a "criticism" of the F-22 is basically a recognition that the U.S. military has responsibly not mis-used the aircraft – and thereby wasting tight operations and maintenance funds – for missions it was not designed for. It's an air superiority machine that can also take out "double-digit" SAMs; neither the Iraqi insurgents nor Afghan Talibani have fighters (or any other aircraft, for that matter) or advanced SAMs networked in an integrated air defense system. Yes, it would be easy to send a few F-22s over to drop a few bombs on guerrillas and claim they are "battle-tested" – and Secretary Gates has all the authority he needs to "make it so". (And, yes, unfortunately, there are precedents for just such an irresponsible action.) That he hasn't done so is a "good thing"; that he effectively criticizes himself for not doing so is a bizarre thing; that intelligent people take this inanity for a "good thing" because they believe it to be a "criticism" of a "bad thing" is a truly, truly sad thing. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Riddle me this Batman, how's that Raptor spotting that SAM without IRST and what weapon will it use against it? The next-gen SAM hunter is the F-35, which is constantly slammed for having decent air to ground capabilities. The truth is that it's insurgencies all the way down. We're gladly lacking in peer competitors and anybody foolish enough to take the open field against the Americans deserves their afterlife. So the mission for the F-22 is the same as the mission of the most advanced Russian fighters, attending airshows. Hcobb (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Joker, who says only an IRST can detect a SAM – or that only onboard systems can be used to find and fix a SAM’s location? And on what basis do you prognosticate that there will never be a need to achieve air superiority? If there was a way to 100% assure that all future conflicts will only involve insurgencies and no air defenses beyond MANPADS and AK-47s, well, then the heck with stopping production of the F-22s – we could scrap the ones we have built. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, when the SAM Radar is switch off or in standby, how should your F-22 detect this whitout IRST?! How many HARMS destroyed only micro waves ovens in the serbia war? --HDP (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there’s something called network-centric warfare. One possibility is having a UAV (or other air- or ground-based source) that has spotted one (by having been alerted to the area by other intel) hand off the target coordinates to an F-22 which then delivers a brace of satellite-guided JDAMs on the real target instead of the displaced antennas. This is just one example among many of how NCW enables access to a wider range of information to achieve successes rarely possible earlier. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

We can assume that the United States will be engaged in two types of conflicts in the future, against enemies who put a lot of thought into how to withstand the blows of Le Hyperpower and those that don't and we really don't need to worry too much about the later type. The F-35 has better LPI comms than the F-22, but if the F-22 is just a dumb bomb truck that depends on "something else" to find targets for it then you need to define what that something else is and that looks a lot like a F-35, which can drop bigger bombs than the F-22 can. As for air to air combat the best fighter radars the Russians have are outranged by the current AMRAAMs so they die before they see the F-35 and this is on top of being outnumbered by more than ten to one by those F-35s. These are of course the completely valid points that fade away from this article everytime they're added so I can see why you haven't heard of them. Hcobb (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Four AIM-9X, not

There were plans to squeeze a pair of AIM-9X into each of the side bays, but this has been dropped.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Features/modernization/Pages/HonedtoaRazor’sEdge.aspx Lewis and Miller said, when specifically asked, that there are no plans on the books today to install items like side-staring radar arrays in the aircraft. (There is internal space for them.) Nor is there any program office-driven effort to try to squeeze more usable space in the aircraft’s internal weapons bays for carriage of more missiles or bombs.

Hcobb (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That just refers to side "radar arrays", (even though Aim-9X uses infrared trackers such as DAS). In an earlier quote from within the same article, it states "Increment 3.2 is expected to add the AIM-9X air-to-air missile to the Raptor’s quiver and incorporate the multi-function advanced data link on the aircraft." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Nor is there any program office-driven effort to try to squeeze more usable space in the aircraft’s internal weapons bays for carriage of more missiles or bombs." So only two Sidewinders will be carried. Hcobb (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reserve Raptors

Certain units of the Air National Guard are slated to get Raptors. What's the status of this and does it count as a pure USAF-only aircraft after this point? Hcobb (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The answer is, as we say, as clear as mud. The USAF has what is known as the Total Force Integration (TFI) concept which matches up active-duty and reserve-component (Guard and Reserve) units to fly and support some of its fighters. There is a main unit to which is attached a so-called "associate" unit. Each Guard or Reserve unit scheduled to fly F-22s is "associated" with an active-duty unit, except in one case. This exception is the 199th Fighter Squadron (Hawaii ANG) of the 54th Composite Wing, to which an active-duty unit, the 531st FS, will be associated. The other reserve component units to scheduled to fly the F-22 are the 149th FS (Virginia ANG) of the 192nd Fighter Wing – which became the first Guard unit to operate the F-22 back in June 2008 – which is an "associate" unit conjoined with the active-duty 27th FS of the 1st FW, and the 301st FS (AFRC) which will lose its F-16s to serve as an associate unit to the active-duty 49th FW. Since no more F-22s are to be built, it will probably be a very long time before any other reserve component squadron gets to fly Raptors.

The USANG isn't particularly happy with the TFI approach because it usually means supplying reserve-component air and ground crew personnel to support active-duty-owned airplanes; they would prefer their own aircraft on their own airbases. Their F-15s and F-16s are due to wear out before they are scheduled to get F-35s, so they were hoping for further F-22s to be ordered since they prefer to fly what the active-duty Air Force will be flying, not what it was flying. In any case, whether Guard-owned aircraft will be counted as belonging to the USAF, it depends upon what you are trying to count. If you are counting numbers operated by the USAF overall, yes; if you're trying to distinguish between active duty and reserve component aircraft, then no. Hope that helps. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] People editing are confused between the F-22's possible future and current Mission capabilities

Just because the F-35 in the future will be a great plane, does not mean the F-22 does not have an useful mission now. This is a article about the F-22. Why are Editors bringing in information about a future F-35 plane and future modifications to the F-22 to prove that the F-22 is currently useless currently now? There are numerous articles that speak about that the **CURRENT** capabilities of the F-22 are useful in Air-Ground combat. Surely, the Air-Ground capabilities will be improved in the future but they are sufficient **NOW** for the Israeli's to want them given **THEIR** knowledge of when they will take deliver of the **F-35**. Why do editors attempt to make some convoluted argument that the future deliver of the F-35 somehow makes the current model of the F-22 useless when this is not supported by the facts. It's very frustrating that editors are trying to show that the F-22 has no useful mission in todays current Political climate even when this is not supported logically by the facts. I can only image they have some dog in this hunt. Doug rosenberg (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is finding missions where the current F-22 can actually be useful. If the entire mission profile is BVR a2a then the Raptor is the best choice. Once you go hunting for ground targets it gets a lot trickier. Currently the F-22 can not see a S-300 launcher before it turns on its radar and it's ability to strike back in a stealth configuration is limited to a pair of unguided half-ton bombs, because it has no SAR, FLIR or designator.

This entire picture changes with the F-35 that can spot and designate targets on the ground and plink them from a long ways off using the AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (internal stealthy carry on all except for the F-35B). Not to mention that the F-35A has a longer range on internal fuel.

Now if only we can explain reality to people who confuse the F-22's current mission capabilities with its possible future capabilities. Hcobb (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, anybody got a primary ref for Dunn on F-22 vs S-300? All I've gotten is a video link so far. Hcobb (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. The F-22's air-ground ability is kind of an afterthought once they figured out they won't be in dog fights with the Soviets. It's not ideal but it may be the only possible tool for certain missions now. I personally don't think Israel will strike Iran since they don't have the bunker buster technology to do enough damage to the Iranian nuclear bomb development effort even if they can evade the S-300. So I think the argument is a little specious. It will be interesting to see what the US uses if and when they have to attack Iran. As to to the limitations of the F-22 in Air to Surface, I think it would be interesting for you to expand upon the limitations of the F-22 in Air to Surface.Doug rosenberg (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC) And if you want to Nuke a country you would just use a missile.Doug rosenberg (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have F-15Cs flying cover during SEAD missions despite F-16s being capable of engaging in a2a?

F-22s will aid F-35s greatly during any missions over hostile airspace, allowing F-35 to focus on ground targets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.117.2 (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Main Image

Hi all. I would like to alert that the main image is not a real one. It's from some kind of game. If you see it closer, you can realise that it is not real. I suggest a change in that part of the article. Thank you all. --Prtgl93 (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Prtgl93

I don't think so. If you look closely you can see every panel and how each of them is aligned. Notice how the rim of the forward cone is not straight. Hcobb (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Developed Into?

Is it common practice to list theoretical (un-designed, un-built) aircraft in the "developed into" field? I think the FB-22 and the MANTA have spots to be mentioned in the article, but it seems to be a strech to say that the F-22 was "developed into" either of those proposed aircraft. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a new field in the Infobox template. Those are designs based on the F-22 and are not simply variants. The idea is right, but maybe the wording needs adjusting.. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the developed into field has a place in it's current wording (For example, F-15 Eagle was developed into the F-15E Strike Eagle), I'm just suggesting that the X-44 and the FB-22 belong in a less concrete field, something like "related development", which we happen to already have in the See Also section. I think they should be left there (where they are already listed), and we can just leave the "Developed into" field blank in the infobox. My $0.02. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Those two links have been listed under "Variants" for at least a year, possibly more, and ther were no complaints then. "Developed into" is supposed to be a little broader, not narrower. - BilCat (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

When we say that an aircraft has been "developed" doesn't that mean that it flies or at least exists? Hcobb (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No. - BilCat (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the justification for this? I'm just curious. In my mind (and Hcobb's too it seems), "Related Development" is open ended enough to included everything from an aircraft to a design study (like the X-44 and/or FB-22), while "Developed Into" implies something much more concrete. I would say the F-16 was "developed into" the F-16XL because a test article was built and flown. I would not say the F-22 was developed into anything, because nothing has gotten beyond initial propsals or the marketing department's photoshop machine. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matters whether it's theoretical or not. It's just a field to list some related articles - it's not meant to walk on all fours grammatically. Again, there was no problem stated when it was just "Variants", though that was clearly not appropriate. If someone has a better suggestion than "developed from", propose it. I don't have a monopoly on good ides! - BilCat (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to hear my idea after thinking about it, perhaps a better wording would be "Development upon", which doesn't imply so much that the planes were actually developed, just that these concepts were a development of the currently discussed planes. Equally, one can poke holes in this as well, but I thought I'd throw it out there and see if it gets any bites. Kyteto (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Export Variant

Can someone clean up that section in the article? There's no reason to copy and past part of a defense approps bill into the body of the article. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comparable list

Is F-15, And Eurofighter really comparable with the raptor? If so, then what about their counterparts? Rafale, Flankers? I know this is picking, but seriously though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.72.2 (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox image

totally ruine every thing on the page, I was just trying to replace that gay first image, didn't work out to well, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.199.226.126 (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That's alright. It's been fixed. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay I successfuly changed the lead image to a ACTUAL image but it got deleted!! WHY!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.199.226.126 (talk)

Why do think it's not a real image? The image file claims it is real. - BilCat (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Its not from the real world its computer animated - Brainiack16 (talk)

And how do you know that? - You can't just make accusations without some kid of proof. - BilCat (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude just look at it, the cockpit is orange, a purple stream is coming out the back!! You can just tell it isn't real!! - Brainiack16 (talk)

The current image looks similar to the one that 207.199.226.126 changed to. So either they are both real or fake. The canopy uses a gold film to reflect radar signals. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This picture looks perfectly fine to me [2]. Also please read WP:CIVIL about the general tone of your messages. --McSly (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Mc, I've just warned him on his talk page with regards to this rude attitude of his. --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 09:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Braindude, stop being so condescending! The photograph was taken by semi-professional photographer using a REAL camera during an open house air show at Andrews Air Force Base (click this link and confirm it for yourself!). Please stop assuming things and ask all the regular editors here before making any uneducated assumption, and stop harassing Bill on his talk page when there is an ongoing discussion here already, it's very rude. You have just been warned~! --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 05:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I give up no matter what I do you'll just undo it, no matter what I say you'll just deny it. Even though the lead image is clearly computer animated, and you guys are to stubborn to say so. So I quit. - Brainiack16 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC).

You should try looking at the image in the full resolution, that should dispel any doubts. In any case the canopy is gold because it is coated in a fine layer of real gold to make it opaque/reflective to radar. It is similar to the faceplates in the spacesuits used by the Apollo astronauts when they were walking on the moon. The shapes appearing in the exhaust stream of the engines is a very common effect with any jet powered aircraft under the right operating and lighting conditions. BTW, you could try acting a little more gracefully, it will save you a lot of grief in your Wikipedia career. - Nick Thorne ^talk 20:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I respect your opinion Nick, but I did look at it in full and it looked fake still, and I couldn't find any proof of your statement "the canopy is gold because it is coated in a fine layer of real gold to make it opaque/reflective to radar". I would like to know what source you got that from.--Brainiack16 (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not gold actually, it's an indium-tin oxide but that does explain the gold tint just the same. Here is the link. --McSly (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I stand corrected. That's what you get from relying on memory. I think I must have been recalling a comparison I read somewhere between the canopy and the Apollo visors (which were coated with actual gold) and didn't recall all the relevant details. Next time I'll check the references before I open my mouth. Nevertheless, the canopy has that gold appearance as in the photo. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Added to F-22_cockpit#Canopy Hcobb (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think it is fake, now that the gold canopy has been explained? -SidewinderX (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)