Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:42, 6 November 2007

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force North American military history task force United States military history task force

Aviation: Aircraft B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

International Air Power Review content again

ADDING EUROFIGHTER DOGFIGHT TO PERFORMANCE I have added the Eurofighter Dogfight to performance... I then saw the discussions here. I don't agree with removing this reference (and I am not the guy you claimed to be responsible for the Utube and spams). The eurofighter engagement happened, it is a very reliable source and well documented. If these comparisons wouldn't have been fair, the USAF would have hardly agreed to send their F-22. So citing theoretical arguments to remove a real world engagement backed up with sources is not appropriate. Especially since you claim to not know the Eurofighter. At the end lets list the engagements that took place in real world and leave the speculations and simulations and your paper calculations on the side. Also before removing this source, please get the source in question, read it yourself first.

Also in regards to removing the other sources (a 2007 source even) just because you think it's not reliable or warranted is wrong. Honestly I think a 1999 or 2007 congressional report is a pretty reliable assessment and whether it still applies or not is irrelevant since the source contains the date and the user knows that is is older if he can see the date.

If you have a later source you can claim that the issues have been fixed and add the later source. However just reading this discussion and the deliberate removal of anything that sounds remotely negative seems wrong to me - it almost would want me to use the latest wiki-changes tracking tools to see where/what computer your edits are coming from... that might add some more information to this discussion or even topic.

Then my other request is to REMOVE the following quote: "Marshal Angus Houston, chief of the Australian Defence Force, and former head of the Royal Australian Air Force, said in 2004 that the "F-22 will be the most outstanding fighter plane ever built"" The reason being that the quote is a pretty stupid thing to say and reflects more the Marshal rather then saying anything about the plane. First recent engagements show that this statement is simply not true. Second to use "EVER" in his statement is simply a dumb thing to say. I am sure there will be hundreds of fighter planes in the coming 1,000 years that will be much more outstanding then the F-22 - in fact I can think of a large number of planes in the previous century that were A WHOLE LOT more outstanding and revolutionary. Just because someone said something doesn't mean it should be included if what they say is just marketing talk.

How is it marketing talk? Where do we draw the line? The guy is the head of the Australian Air Force you would think what he is saying goes beyond marketing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.180.242 (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.190.6 (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• The International Air Power Review paragraph was poorly written and dubious because it did not quote anyone. This has been discussed a lot on Eurofighter talk page. -Fnlayson 17:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Apparently someone beat me to removing this. I'm sorry, please link or quote, this was written as if your own personal speculation plus fails the "smell" test. Additionally, I'm trying to find any info on this magazine and its article and there's precious little out there. At the rate at which they publish (EXTREMELY infrequently, semi-annually but without set schedule per their own website and forums) would suggest their information is very unlikely to be the most up to date and accurate... 2 issues per year at $20? Extremely light readership? I could see if this were in Jane's or something. -MazNJ 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia not a newspaper where opinion is often confused with fact. I would also point out that this claim really does not stand up under scrutiny. There is not much out there aside from the one un-verified, unattributable claim from a publication that publishes infrequently and on no particular schedule. In short it fails the smell test. Perhaps Janes or Aviation Week would be a better source for something like this. In fact the article clearly fails the threshold of inclusion according to wiki, read WP:ATTR. Look under Exceptional Claims Require Exceptional Sources. The first two bullets sums up the problem with including it at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.180.242 (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Findings regarding the IAPR report of Typhoon-F-22 engagement

Although real-life has kept me off-wiki for the last couple of weeks, I have been trying to see what I could uncover about the incident alleged to have happened by the IAPR. So far I have found not the slightest confirmation that the event ever occurred and many reasons to disbelieve the report altogether.

The article as a whole is essentially an unapologetic puff piece on the Typhoon; that doesn’t mean anything written in it is automatically untrue, but it does caution any reader to beware of possible bias in anything uncited – and nothing regarding the Typhoon vs. F-22 incident is sourced, either internally or by footnote. The entirety of what was written about the story is a single paragraph:

Though still a relatively immature platform, Typhoon has already proved to be a hard opponent to beat, so that when a two-seat trainer was bounced by two F-15s during an operational conversion sortie, the Typhoon pilot was easily able to outmanoeuvre his assailants and position himself for a simulated ‘kill’ against both. More recently, there have been repeated reports that two RAF Typhoons deployed to the USA for OEU trials work have been flying against the F-22 at NAS China Lake, and have performed better than was expected. There was little surprise that Typhoon, with its world-class agility and high off-boresight missile capability was able to dominate the ‘Within Visual Range’ fight, but the aircraft did cause a surprise by getting a radar lock on the F-22 at a surprisingly long range. The F-22s reportedly cried off, claiming that they were ‘unstealthed’ anyway, although the next day’s scheduled two versus two BVR engagement was cancelled, and “the USAF decided they didn’t want to play any more.” When this incident was reported on a website frequented by front-line RAF aircrew a senior RAF officer urged an end to the conversation on security grounds.

The F-15 engagement reported is reliably attested to by multiple reliable sources, so it is not at issue. (However, as the Scotsman makes a little clearer, the fighters involved were F-15E Strike Eagles, not the F-15C air superiority version, and it would have been shameful for the Typhoon to have been bested by these heavier, less-maneuverable birds.) In fact, one has to wonder if the Typhoon vs. F-22 report isn’t a garbled version of this event.

For this latter, the IAPR article mentions uncited “repeated reports” (which I’ve been so far unable to find online), but then goes on to refer to only the forum website report. (Perhaps the “repeated reports” were multiple acquaintances telling him about the website post?) The author seems to have only secondhand information on the forum – which goes unnamed (just like the “senior RAF officer”). While he mentions that it is “frequented by front-line RAF aircrew”, the original forum post appears to not have been made by someone in the RAF nor a witness to the alleged events – otherwise he would have said so to gain greater credibility. Furthermore, RAF professionals or in-place witnesses would not make the mistake of claiming that the F-22 flew against the Typhoon at NAS China Lake. That’s a US Navy facility, and the US Air Force has its own equivalent facilities. (Both do offer these facilities to the air forces of allied nations for testing that can’t be duplicated in-country at reasonable expense.)

Of the knowledgeable people I’ve spoken to, few had ever heard of this allegation and all were all but sure that the F-22 has not (yet) been to China Lake nor has it been flown in mock engagements against the Typhoon specifically or against any aircraft flown by non-US personnel. Of course, one can never prove with 100% certainty that such an event occurred and was highly classified – given how security rules go regarding stealth technology – but it seems unlikely. In fact, it reads more like “something made up on the Internet one day.” As it stands, all we have is a report of a rumor on a web forum about a rumor from an unknown source posted by someone without first-hand knowledge or professional experience. Until there is evidence based on what Misplaced Pages considers to be reliable sources, there seems to be no reason to include the alleged incident at all. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... one has to look at the context here. When entering F22 or eurofighter the wikipedia articles pop up as number 2 -3 on google. Each airplane costs millions of dollars - or billions when looking at contracts. The recent typhoon saudi deal is worth 75 billion. Here is what really happened to my opinion: The meeting took place, but once the results were made public, ANYTHING will be done from the US Side to suppress it, discredit it or mention it has ever happened. You likely won't find any USA military person who will confirm anything - their carreer would be over BIG TIME. In fact I think it would probably make sense from a manufacturers point of view to spend some $ and make sure that the number 2-3 spots on the web don't mention this incident - or even hint towards it. After all it would be disastrous if an army spends twice as much $ on a plane that might not be superior. At the end its economic interest... but I think it's wrong to have Misplaced Pages be ruled by those interests and allow to have these edits continue. The source is a respected print publication - I highly doubt that a wikipedia admin has more knowledge/clout then a print magazine subscribed to by probably all airforces in this world.

So let's face it - these 2 entries F22 / Typhoon are absolutely crucial and can win/lose millions for the countries economies. Looking at the discussions going on - It's hard to not notice the bias towards the raptor... which quite honestly means that the Europeans don't quite have their lobbying/PR muscle together.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.190.6 (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't have to look at the context here. That would be called {{WP:OR|original research]]. The fact is, there are no reliable sources stating that the F-22 even went up against any foreign aircraft, let alone the Typhoon. The forum mentioned in the report doesn't count. Until something more reliable comes out (and for the reasons stated above by Askari Mark, I don't think it ever will, because the event probably didn't take place), it cannot be mentioned in this or the Typhoon article. Parsecboy 20:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok me again.. well parsecboy see that's what I don't get. Why do you ASSUME that THE SOURCE had no SOURCES (because they don't list it? You simply don't know it). I think if you have A SOURCE - a very respectable one, its ok to quote them unless you have PROOF that they lied - until you can bring that proof, or tell us all why YOUR clout or knowledge or experience should count MORE then a specialty print magazine subscribed to by all major airforces in the world, I suggest you just stop with your biased focus. It ruins wikipedia for all of us. Your arguments don't make sense, they are not logical and an insult to all of us. You say that the FORUM mentioned doesn't count - WHY - because you say so???? I think a professional aviation publication subscribed to by all major AF in the world is a valid source period - and if you think the source lied then bring proof.. until then the source is valid - period. Sirbidmaster 18:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.190.6 (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me make my point clear, because it was obviously over your head the last time. Firstly, the forum isn't even named, so it's veracity cannot be judged. Second, forums do not in any way ever constitute a reliable source. Third, what academic source has reviewed the article in question and found it to be suitable or reliable? Perhaps you should read the Misplaced Pages policy page on reliable sources before you start calling people fools. And sign your posts; it's just 4 tildes. Parsecboy 00:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, 76.102.190.6, Misplaced Pages has a policy of assuming good faith on the behalf of other editors, so unless and until you have firm evidence that I or some other editor is shilling for the USAF, you shouldn’t make the assertion. It would be the same as someone calling you a shill for Eurofighter simply because you’re a fan of that airplane. As it is, I think my track record for non-partisanship on Misplaced Pages is well-attested to by my work. I also happen to be an aerospace engineer with three decades of experience who has worked with other professionals from many different companies and countries, so I have a broad range of contacts and considerable knowledge about how the “real world” of aerospace works. Since I found the purported incident personally and professionally interesting, I decided to explore and see what I could learn about it, if anything. (Contrary to popular opinion, not all embarrassments get classified.)

As I noted above, it’s impossible to prove the incident never occurred somewhat along the lines described in the IAPR article; however, there’s nothing more than rumor to assert that it ever actually happened. Given vague claims with no identification of sources other than a “forum frequented by front-line RAF aircrew” (for beer and grins perhaps?), all we have is a third-hand rumor at best, and one containing enough inaccurate content in that single paragraphs to raise at least some concern regarding the original source’s grasp of the subject matter. While that may be sufficient “reliability” for IAPR, it flunks Misplaced Pages’s explicit guidelines for “reliable sources” as well as its standards for verifiability. Should a reliable source be found to establish that the incident actually occurred, then I would by all means encourage coverage of the alleged incident here. If true, it would be an embarrassment to the USAF and Lockheed Martin, but it certainly won’t embarrass me. Until then, however, there seems to be less to it than a typical National Enquirer story. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And besides, who bases billion dollar purchases on wikipedia entries? --Mmx1 02:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: An IP has begun adding this IAPR paragraph to the 4th generation jet fighter article and appending a further OR sentence to the effect of “This mock engagement happened during Exercise High Rider 10 during 2005”, which the IP cites to a prnewswire report that does not, in fact, make this claim nor even mentions the F-22 (or the F-15E engagement). (For those who aren’t aware of it, Prnewswire is a press release distribution service – companies and organizations pay them to distribute their press releases to news providers – and, as such, it is not considered a reliable source in of itself.) First, the F-15E engagement occurred over the UK in the Lakes District, not NAS China Lake. Second, while I do strongly suspect that ‘Exercise High Rider 10’ is the event at which the author of the IAPR article (and his source) believe the purported F-22 engagement occurred, even this Eurofighter press release makes no assertion that the Typhoon’s weapons trials at China Lake involved any non-RAF aircraft. It you read the article, it appears the only opponent aircraft involved were the Harrier GR.7 and Tornado GR.4 aircraft of the RAF’s Fast Jet and Weapons Operational Evaluation Unit (FJWOEU) that deployed with the Typhoon (from the Typhoon combined test team). Note that Eurofighter says only a single Typhoon was deployed, not two (as the IAPR article states); this is another strike against the accuracy of the story published by IAPR, and an unqualified one given that there are no “security” reasons why they couldn’t have said there were two, if there had been. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's face it the engagement has happened. I think the press release and the exercise name are hints for people who want to , to dig a bit deeper. As a manufacturer you can't claim X beat Y... but the press release provides plenty of information. It just named what aircraft from Europe were deployed but not which one they competed against.

I am still concerned by the bias that is being adopted here. The claim at the beginning of the article is pure "marketing" and has no place on wikipedia, the fact that it is left there shows my earlier assumption of a pr war. I'll remove it to protest it. The claim that "cannot be matched by any known or projected fighter" is simply marketing BS and not worthy wikipedia.... ITS MARKETING period - and any discussion about it is useless and just shows bias. Let's face it guys. The Typhoons raped the Raptors at NAS china lake and there are tons of people working on hiding that fact. Let's all dig a bit deeper, so far there are MORE THEN ENOUGH proof/sources that all point into the same direction. Typhoon's were at china lake at the same time as raptors, exercice name etc. etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.190.6 (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no reliable proof the engagement ever took place. The source you were using to put the incident back in the article is a Misplaced Pages mirror. Misplaced Pages is never allowed to source itself. We've already discussed the problems with your other sources earlier (forums, the article that got several key facts wrong about the F15/Typhoon engagement, etc.). The fact that there is an exercise name means nothing. Parsecboy 19:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Air Show - Toronto Picture

The F-22 Raptor flown by an international landmark--the CN Tower--during its first public demonstration outside of the United States on the long weekend of September 1-3, 2007. This is undeniable an historic event. The event was captured on the picture (right). Some wikipedia contributors insist in removing the picture from the main article, their objection being that the picture is low quality. Truly, this is why this picture is published under the "Trade Show" heading: it is meant to be a record of a life event, not a glossy sales brochure. The article shows plenty of other quality pictures of the aircraft. If someone has a better quality picture to illustrate the subject event, be my guest and replace it. Until then, this picture may be the best available to illustrate that historic event.

Before someone just single-mindedly reject someone else's contribution, at least first take a breather, write up your thoughts in this "talk" section, then let's see toghether what is best for this publication.--JLdesAlpins 23:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the others. The F-22 is too small in that image to tell what it is. Therefore, I don't see it adding anything to this article. For an air show article, it would be OK, I think. -Fnlayson 23:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The F-22 being such a young aircraft, there is no doubt that it will be shown in countless airshows for years to come. Do you think we shoud create a separate page dedicated to its airshow appearances?--JLdesAlpins 23:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• I meant adding that image to this article: Canadian International Air Show. It might be a while before there's enough information available to make a decent F-22 air show article. Not sure about that.. -Fnlayson 23:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the pic. Please don't re-add it without a consensus to do so. In addition, I've never been happy with the "Air Show" section in this article, so I've removed that too. What other fighter article on Wkipedia even has one? It smacks of Original Research, even if the individual items are sourced. I don't think the section is very relevant overall, and certainly an article on F-22 airshow appearences would be a bad idea. I agree with Fnlayson (Jeff) that Canadian International Air Show would be a more appropriate place for such a pic, tho I agree with the original deleter of the pic that this one is poor quality. As such, it probably should not be used at all. - BillCJ 23:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Now I would like to make a case for retaining at least a mention of the F-22 Air Show Demonstration Team since this is a legitimate public demonstration of the aircraft. I do agree that the section itself was too esoteric and could be deleted. As to retaining the above photo, even blowing it up showed only a tiny blurred image. I have much better F-22 photos that show it in air shows. FWIW Bzuk 01:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC).

As long as it has the proper sources (which BZuk always includes!), I've no problem with that. - BillCJ 01:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A paragraph on air shows including this one is a good idea. Here's one article about starting air shows in May.Raptor Puts on the Ritz -Fnlayson 01:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Given its technological sensitivity, its appearance at airshows is actually rather notable. I agree that a single para. on the appearance of the F-22 in its first domestic and foreign airshows is a worthwhile addition. Askari Mark (Talk) 15:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• I meant mainly a paragraph on the air show tour with mention of notable shows. -Fnlayson 17:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Data link

This article currently reads: In 2007, tests carried out by Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and L-3 Communications enabled the AESA system of a Raptor to act like a WiFi access point, able to transmit data at 548 Megabit/sec and receive at Gigabit speed, far faster than the current Link 16 system used by US and allied aircraft, which transfers data at just over 1 Megabit/sec. However, the Link 16 page claims a data rate of 31.6kbits to 115.2kbits/sec, about a tenth of that. The higher rate comes unsourced from an article at The Register, which is generally slightly less accurate than reading sheep entrails. Anyone have a good source for the data rate of Link 16? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaleja (talk • contribs) 18:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

F-22 fanpage? This article should be marked as clearly biased

- Who wrote the propaganda piece on the F-22 Raptor, this sound more like an F-22 fanpage than anything else. This page should be marked as propaganda page, it has a clear bias.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Financialmodel (talk • contribs)

Someone is rying to make the jumper statement support a biased view that the f-22 is better than te typhoon, by saying they are desiged for "difference performence", while he deleted another statement by juumper that they run "neck on neck". - this article needs to be marked as biased, correct the quotes, or simply delete te biased comparison quotes taken out of context. --Financialmodel 18:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong in the end Jumper says the following: The F/A-22 performs in much the same way as the Eurofighter, General Jumper said. But it has additional capabilities that allow it to perform the Air Force's unique missions.

"The F/A-22 Raptor has stealth and supercruise," he said. "It has the ability to penetrate virtually undetected because of (those) capabilities. It is designed to be a penetrating airplane. It can maneuver with the best of them if it has to, but what you want to be able to do is get into contested airspace no matter where it is."

Notice he says ADDITIONAL CAPABILITES. Thinking that the Typhoon is anything more than a 4th generation fighter is sheer stupidity. While it is a capable aircraft more than a match for a SU-27 which it was designed to defeat it is not in the same class as the F-22 or the F-35 for that matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.180.242 (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Notice he says ADDITIONAL CAPABILITES. ... as if the EF couldn't supercruise ;-) Just be a man and admit it, you desperately want things to be your way, no matter the facts. 77.56.111.155 12:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedic article. Disrespectful posts will not be tolerated. This article is not meant to show which fighter jet is better, or which continent is better. This page will not turn into a Typhoon comparison page. It is only appropriate to include information about each jet. Readers of this resource are the ones to decide what to think. Anyone adding content to this talk page must sign his or her post by typing four (4) tildes after added content. Nicholas SL Smith 23:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree there may be a bias to this article. I always attempt to think outside the box, even if it means a little bit to not believe in my religion possibly, but many opinions were given in this article. Perhaps some facts, but I would in the future like to see someone who has pictures of them actually going to these test sites and saying they have seen the actual results, and to be honest, I wouldn't want this to be like the olympics, and I would actually prefer unbribed judges of many countries, even if it means communists. - No offense to any judges of the olympics. CutNut 05:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that flies in the face of WP:V & WP:RS. You requirements of photographic proof are not IAW WP standards. — BQZip01 —  06:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree this article is biased and should be marked as such. Check out my other post, if you run the edits on this page through wikiscanner you'll see tons of edit coming from government agencies, pentagon, boeing, etc. etc. That history alone is proof enough that this article is biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.190.6 (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the fact that IPs from various government agencies, some of which have nothing to do with the developement or operation of this aircraft, have editted this article means absolutely nothing. Employment by the government does not immediately imply bias one way or the other. That's like saying Germans can't write about Germany, because they'd be biased. Total and complete rubbish. Be constructive at this article, or go elsewhere. Parsecboy 18:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Here, here! — BQZip01 —  20:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, if we checked all the IPs on the Eurofighter Typhoon page, what are the chances of finding British/European government and company links? Not that it matters to me, but it's interesting that the complainer hasn't checked those and complained on the Typhoon page. Justr asking! - BillCJ 21:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If we look up at the Eurofighter page, then we find the Lockeed (on the F-22) worker Nicholas Samuel Lee Smith! The same Nslsmith change here massively the F-22 page!--90.186.142.183 07:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's really quite suspicious. Someone who works for an aeronautical company is...interested in...airplanes. I'm speechless. That's a monumental discovery. You know, I think you're right. You've convinced me, at least. Let's put up POV and Totally-disputed tags. Maybe we should even file a request with ARBCOM. I mean, someone working on articles that interest him. What kind of madness is that? Parsecboy 11:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI. What you assert is specifically accepted on Misplaced Pages. — BQZip01 —  16:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A Misplaced Pages conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the purpose of Misplaced Pages to produce a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia, and the potential motivations of an individual editor. COI editing often involves contributing to Misplaced Pages in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups. When an editor disregards the aims of Misplaced Pages to advance outside interests, they stand in a conflict. --90.186.87.180 16:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And...where is that happening, again? How about you provide a specific edit made by Nslsmith (or anyone else, for that matter) where he violated WP:COI. Until then, disrupt another article. Parsecboy 17:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is just wasting time. I say WP:NOFEEDING. -Fnlayson 17:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And just who are you, 90.186.87.180? You edit anonymously so that we have no idea if you're editing in a COI fashion, and yet make accusatory statements without discussing specifics? Stick to improving the article. If there's something specific about the article that you feel is not properly sourced, or is not backed up by the sources, or is spammish, present the specific text here, describe what you think is wrong with it (in view of our guidelines), and suggest an alternative. That's the way constructive, consensus-based editing is accomplished. AKRadecki 17:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks 90.186.142.183 for pointing out my name, I am not anonymous and I am very interested in aircraft articles. I also must point out that it is impossible for me to have edited this article in any biased way because I've never actually edited this article. Not once. I have never edited this article. Also - if you read what I have suggested, you'll see that I oppose fan-boy content such as comparison sections, and quotes from fans such as Air Force Generals (they love it, they say it is great, I don't think that content is necessarily appropriate but others disagree, and I yield.) All of this and you think that I am biased? I am simply interested in good writing - so let us get back to improving this article and some day it may be featured again! Nicholas SL Smith 02:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Unit cost

Flight International (a respected publication) consistently cites the unit price as $200 million. And more recently than the USAF reference in this article's infobox. e.g.

• "Japan asks USA to ease fighter export restrictions" May 1, 2007
• "Japan studies interim deal to replace F-4s" May 8, 2007
• "Japan makes stealthy move for F-22 Raptor" July 31, 2007

Any thoughts? Mark83 23:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Unit or flyway cost can be easily miscalculated, especially doing a simple, but incorrect calculation of dividing total costs by number of units. It is supposed to be the current incremental cost. FI could have got the wrong number and stayed with it. -Fnlayson 23:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123022371 By the time all 183 jets have been purchased, around $28 billion will have been spent on research and development. An additional $34 billion will have been spent on actually procuring the aircraft. That's about $62 billion for the total program cost. Divided out, that's comes to about $338 million per aircraft.--90.186.147.65 08:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Way to copy what's already in the article and that's NOT how unit costs are properly calculated. -Fnlayson 13:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did this edit. The cost without the weapons systems, is a bit meaningless, that is, what is it, then, the cost of the airframe ? Plus, the values are taken from the same source.CyrilleDunant 14:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• WS cost includes aircraft costs, spares & other costs. Unit flyaway cost for the aircraft itself and is what is intended for the Infobox. Unit flyaway cost is based on recurring costs. -Fnlayson 14:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Very well, this should probably be clarified in the infobox page...CyrilleDunant 14:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• For info on figuring out and understanding the different types of unit costs, please see my reference essay on the topic. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

is the united states planing to seel any of those fighter jets i n the future to nato or allied countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 18:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Read the "Proposed foreign sales" section of this article. -Fnlayson 18:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

F-22 simulated kill?

Can anyone verify the source of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MFpart (talk • contribs) 20:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

News; One F-22 loss at Red Flag attributed to bad tactics Amy Butler 28 Februar 2007 Aerospace Daily & Defense Report 5 Volume 221, Issue 39 2007 McGraw-Hill, Inc --HDP 22:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• If you're asking if it's a reliable source, yes. It explains the "kill" as follows:

The exercise was focused on training the youngest and newest F-22 pilots, according to Bergeson. Nearly one-third of the pilots involved in the F-22's portion of the exercise had less than 50 flight hours on the aircraft. The "red" force of aggressors consisted of various F-15s and F-16s that were able to regenerate upon sustaining damage; thus they were able to constantly flow into and out of the fight, maintaining a rigorous operational tempo.

The friendly "blue" force lost one F-22 during the exercise, Bergeson says. He attributes the loss to a confusing "mulligan," whereby an enemy "red" fighter regenerated or re-entered the fight unbeknownst to the blue forces. "We made some tactical mistakes and one slipped through," Bergeson told reporters Feb. 27 during a telecom from Langley Air Force Base, Va., upon returning from the deployment. Apparently, the F-22 pilot did not realize the aggressor was not out of the fight and should have continued to attack the aircraft.

The article also noted that one-third of the F-22 pilots involved had less than 50 hours in type, and that the F-22's AESA capabilities were not being factored in during the simulation. For the exercise, USAF F-16CJs and Navy EA-6Bs provided electronic jamming and attack. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

1/3 had less than 50h and 2/3 had more as 50h on a F-22. How many hours on F-22 simulators and how many 1000 hours on other Jets like F-15? --90.186.140.193 07:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you a pilot? Are you aware that most planes all handle differently? Are you aware that simulators never come close to the real thing? Regardless, how is this even notable? Planes get "shot down" in mock engagements all the time. Just because the F22 is more advanced than most fighters doesn't mean it's invulnerable or error-proof (as was this case, where the pilot made an mistake). Parsecboy 11:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This F-22 kill was notable because the aircraft was sold on its superiority over others. On paper (and I emphasize paper) it's supposed to eat F15's and 16's and pretty much anything else out there for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and have more appetite for snacks in-between. What the article fails to mention is that the aircraft has an incredible integrated avionics and weapons suite, which increases the learning curve, but once mastered, is a multiplier to the lethality of the aircraft. I wouldn't be surprised if this one loss also helps the Raptor drivers learn some humility and hence is an excellent learning opportunity for all. Aki Korhonen 14:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Fighter pilots made humble??? I don't think that's possible. In any case, since shot-down fighters don't normally get to regenerate themselves in reality in mid-air and immediately return to battle, it's more a game-induced error. What it does emphasize is that no matter how "dominant" a fighter is, none is utterly invincible; their pilots will always be vulnerable to "surprises" – and it's usually the one you didn't see that gets you. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Bomb test flameout nearly crashes F-22

Bomb test flameout nearly crashes F-22--90.186.140.193 07:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So what? I didn't think this article was about operator error. Parsecboy 12:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting article. While it means there's a bug in the system, the automatic immediate restart of the engines with effectively no indication of performance loss to the pilot or the ground crew monitoring the flight is in the category of ultra-cool. That might be worth commenting on in the article.Aki Korhonen 14:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

air dominance?

I'm not an expert or even a buff... but most planes like this are listed as "air superiority". This one is "air dominance", which if you look it up, doesn't actually have a compatible definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.107.130 (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a formal definition of "air dominance"; it's more a phrase intended to underscore that it not only is a top "air superiority" fighter in the traditional sense, but also has electronic, network-centric, stealth and other performance capabilities never seen before. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• As he said, Air dominance is the US Air Force's terminology. The infobox type does list air superiority. That should help, but may confuse some. -Fnlayson 17:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Formal definition of air dominance is an aircraft can be found here http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA398411 In a nutshell air dominance requires and aircraft to have stealth, supercruise, High-Altitude operational ceiling, integrated Avionics, dominant Air-to-Air Capability, significant Lethal Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) Capability, substantial Precision Strike Capability, intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) Capability, network Expansion. http://www.f22-raptor.com/government/dominance.html It is much more than just air superiority.70.107.173.5 03:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, neither source actually defines what "air dominance" means. Although the article referred to in the first link might have a definition, this link is just to an abstract which does not. The second uses "Air Dominance" simply as a header; it's not clear that the list appended to the subsequent text is even intended to be a definition of "air dominance", but more probably a list of the F-22's capabilities that contribute to it. (All the text says is "F-22 capabilities distill nearly all requisite theater enablers into a single platform" – but the relationship of "theater enablers" to "air dominance" in toto is not at all clearly made.) Askari Mark (Talk) 03:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You are really splitting hairs. The air force, the user of the aircraft, the entity that wrote the requirements for it's development calls it an air dominance fighter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.173.5 (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mark's assessment. The F-22 is a multi-role air superiority fighter. Besides, 70.107.173.5, you do not have consensus for a change and are in violation of the 3R rule if you continue this edit war. FWIW Bzuk 04:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Same here, the mission is clearly air superiority. The "air dominance" thing is just a PR stunt. --McSly 04:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Just did a google search on F-22 and air superiority- 45,200 hits, F-22-air dominance- 4,200 hits- all recent and only on USAF releases (it is obviously a PR initiative by the USAF) and is not generally accepted terminology. FWIW Bzuk 04:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

• The Type field in the Infobox is for a general category info. We're not required to use the AF's precise terminalogy. Air dominace is used in the text. It looks like you're just trying to be disruptive here. -Fnlayson 04:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• No, it's all about accuracy and getting facts straight. The air force says that the plane whose requirements it wrote and who OPERATES it say that it is an air dominance fighter. The F-15 is an air superiority fighter. 35 years ago there where not too many references to air superiority until the F-15 came along. The F-22 takes it one step further.

• I really feel sorry for you if you call trying to get things right disruptive. As for consensus, well that is one of wikipedias flaws. Most of its editors value consensus over fact. 162.83.226.72 05:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, if you can't play by the rules, why are you here? FWIW Bzuk 05:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Facts, Facts. It's got nothing to do with rules but the information is taken straight (WORD FOR WORD)from the air force FACT file on the F-22. There really is nothing to discuss. 162.83.226.119 06:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting other's "good faith edits" constantly and not seeking a resolution here is in contravention of the guidelines established by Misplaced Pages. Since I assume you are a new editor, let me review the guidelines that all Misplaced Pages editors follow. The basic tenets of Misplaced Pages use include:

• Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them;
• Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations;
• Stay cool when the editing gets hot;
• Avoid edit wars and follow the three-revert rule;
• Act in good faith;
• Never disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point;
• Assume good faith on the part of others, and
• Be open and welcoming.

At this point, you have been in contravention of all of these guidelines and although these tenets are established to illustrate and guide progress, they are the "backbone" of civil discourse in what is primarily an "open" forum. FWIW Bzuk 06:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

BZuk, unless I'm greeatly mistaken, this is a user (Wikizilla) who has been banned for edit-warring and sock-puppetry. It's already demonstrated it's not interested in rules. Let's try to concentrate on forming a consensus without it, since they have no interest in gaining a consensus. For the record, gaining a consensus is not about ignoring "facts", but about convincing others that your facts are what should be presented. The USAF calls it an "Air dominance fighter", and no one disputes that, nor is anyone saying that can't be in the text. Should we use what is apparently a marketing term to describe one individual type fighter in the Infobox? The infobox is there to present a quick summary of information to those unfamilar with the type, or those wanting a quick overview. As such, we should use more general categories, not plane-specific terms. THose who disagree should focus on why such a narrow term should be used in the infobox. Up to this point, no attempt has been made to do this. Instead, a bunch of quotes have been thrown out, and then unilateral changes made to the article. So please: convince us, but don't insult us. - BillCJ 06:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Bill, again, you make perfect sense. No use arguing with someone who is looking to pick a fight. However, I think it would be useful to establish a few "standard" infobox designations: Fighter, Bomber, Reconnaissance aircraft, Fighter-bomber, and so on. FWIW Bzuk 07:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

“You are really splitting hairs.” – Not at all ... unless you call someone else offering better facts than yours “splitting hairs”. Frankly, ‘70’, the fact is that neither of the links you offered as evidence that “supports” your claims truly does so (“word for word” or otherwise). Moreover, it's irrelevant as far as the infobox goes, as I and BillCJ. Furthermore, what ‘162’ (same person, different IP?) calls an “air force FACT file” was clearly an advertising flier published by the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin. I do agree with ‘162’ on one thing, which is that further discussion does appear useless with anons who believe that their being able to unilaterally impose their opinions, posturing as “facts”, upon Misplaced Pages makes Misplaced Pages “flawed”. (BTW, it is not vandalism to remove facts – assuming they really are such – from an article if they are irrelevant to an article or to a particular section of it.) Askari Mark (Talk) 00:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199 Two thirds of the way down the page: "Primary Function: Air dominance, multi-role fighter" The last time I looked that URL clearly comes from the air force. Notice the URL af=air force mil=military domain. Not exactly an advertising flier published by Lockheed. In fact http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=101 is the one for the F-15. Made by Boeing. Notice further on the F-22 page at the bottom. The contact is Point of Contact

"Air Combat Command, Public Affairs Office; 130 Andrews St., Suite 202; Langley AFB, VA 23665-1987; DSN 574-5007 or (757) 764-5007; e-mail: accpa.operations@langley.af.mil" Hmmm Air Combat Command that must be some marketing organization I guess.

• Funny, like AF and .mil takes decoding. Watch the smarta- edit summaries and be civil. The military does "marketing" to get public and political support for their hardware. And it's not a new thing. -Fnlayson 04:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So tell me then, what is not "marketing"? Was it marketing when the the air force used the term air superiority fighter with the F-15. Your premise is ridiculous. Lets discount any citation from the air force about the plane. Of course its all just PR. Now we throw out citations from the air force about their fighter. Hahaha. Wiki falls to new lows. It would be funny except that anytime you do a search on something wikistupidity shows up in the top three entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.128.109 (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't kowtow to everything the military says. Technical specs, fine. Fancy terms that no one else uses, to describe its newest fighter? Not fine. The funny thing about your comment above, about the sources you're using, is that you ignored that the POC is the Public Affairs Office, which is very much the military's very biased PR and marketing organization. Parsecboy 12:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Try again. I was referring to the two references you gave early in this section beginning with "Formal definition of air dominance is an aircraft can be found here...". Apparently you can only be bothered to seek better sources when your bad ones are exposed. Perhaps careless inattention is why you keep seeking to put a marketing name in an infobox that calls for a generic name? Or do you just like trolling? Tell you what, if you can find the USAF's formal definition of "Air Dominance" – it's available, but I don't know if it's online – and show that the F-22's original requirements were for it to be an "air dominance fighter", then we can default to your desire. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

My desire has been met with the term "fighter". Air Superiority clearly is not what the AF is calling it and whether it's PR or not it's their plane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.128.109 (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

USAF doesn't call the F-22 an "air superiority fighter"? Au contraire. You must not have bothered to look. It took me all of the time to type in an appropriate Google search to find this: "The development and production of F-22 air superiority fighters is estimated to cost $99.1 billion (then-year dollars)." (Emphasis added.) You'd think this was rocket science; a little more looking and you'll find many more. So, please, no more trolling over this. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The recent edit war on the main article constituted a contravention of Misplaced Pages:Content forking; contentious issues should be deliberated first on the talk page. Continuing in this manner will result in future administrative actions. FWIW Bzuk 00:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC).

I want to remove this statement here: The US Air Force claims that the F-22A cannot be matched by any known or projected fighter. IT is speculation and marketing bs. IT has nothing to do in an encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobile1 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a statement by the operator not the contractor and can hardly be characterized as marketing. Besides the removal of a cited statement is not normal practice. Instead of reverting, try to improve the statement. Bzuk 20:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC).

Marketing does not need to come from the contractor per definition. The statement is not only absurd but principally wrong. Besides what you are critizing -removal of a cited statement- is exactly what YOU did with my cited statement content (the NAS china station incident). It's said to see how biased US weapon entries are on wikipedia. Instead of removing my citation of the NAS china station incident, try to improve the statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.190.6 (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If you mean by "YOU" somebody else then that's fine, but I didn't revert anything. Check the edit history, you were reverted by an admin due to an example of coyviol. FWIW Bzuk 00:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC).

The problem with your NAS China Lake section is that has not yet been proven as true. Some forums and a Misplaced Pages mirror do not count as reliable sources. Read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. Parsecboy 00:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

So where are we on the debate – and attempt to gain consensus – regarding what generic class of fighter the F-22 is? So far, the only evidence offered by those who insist on “air dominance” – on their “say so” – have been the following:

1. A “formal definition of air dominance” that doesn’t define it.
2. A contractor webpage (see the copyright notice) that they say also defines “air dominance”, but doesn’t – it just offers a list generic F-22 capabilities under a header of “air dominance” and makes no attempt to define just what the concept entails.
3. Unsourced assertions that the USAF officially calls the F-22 “air dominance fighter” (in preference to “air superiority fighter” or “stealth fighter” or “next-generation fighter” or “5th-generation fighter” or “fighter aircraft” or several other appellations that can be found in USAF, DoD, or other US government entities).
4. A http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199 USAF fact sheet that mentions two-thirds the way down the page a single summary info line that reads “Primary Function: Air dominance, multi-role fighter”, quite ignoring not only the fact that the very first line just calls it a “fighter”, but nowhere in text of the main article is the F-22 called an “air dominance fighter”.

I’ve invited them to offer the USAF's formal definition of “Air Dominance” and to show that the F-22's original requirements were for it to be an "air dominance fighter" – in short, to prove that there is such a thing (that is, beyond “marketing-speak”) – but no dice. Yet, somehow, we’re supposed to accept that one term among the many terms the USAF uses to describe the F-22 as both “official” and meaning something – as yet unidentified – more than “air superiority fighter”. Kind of hard to kowtow to the sort of “evidence” that is really based on nothing more than “Trust me, I know better than you.”

And, yes, the USAF freely uses other terms for the F-22 with just as much aplomb. A few examples (emphasis added in all cases):

1. The Air University’s "Air & Space Power Journal": “Meanwhile, however, the Air Force has spent close to $20 billion on engineering and manufacturing development of the F-22 air superiority fighter (which will cost at least $100 million per copy to produce).”
2. Same source: “For example, the F/A-22, the Air Force’s new air-superiority fighter, only recently received congressional approval for production.”
3. MILNET fact sheet entitled: “MILNET: F-22 Raptor Air Superiority Fighter”
4. Air University Press publication: Title: “The Air Superiority Fighter and Defense Transformation; Why DOD Requirements Demand the F/A-22 Raptor” Foreword written by USAF Maj Gen Bentley B. Rayburn, Commandant, Air War College (Think he’d know?): “In this paper, Lt Col Devin L. Cate tackles the question of whether an air superiority fighter is relevant to warfare in the twenty-first century. Critics of the F/A-22, the US Air Force’s next generation air superiority fighter, have identified it as a cold war relic—unjustifiably expensive and out of step with the Department of Defense (DOD) transformation.”
5. "Airman", an official USAF publication: “Plans call for the F-35 to be the world’s premier strike aircraft through 2040, said Edward C. ‘Pete’ Aldridge Jr., under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics. ‘It will provide air-to-air capability second only to the F-22 air superiority fighter,” he said.” (Think he’d know?)
6. Same source: “An F-22 Raptor soars high above the Sierra Nevada. The Air Force’s new air superiority fighter will dominate the future air combat arena by integrating advanced avionics, stealth and supercruise.”
7. Air Force Link, the USAF’s official website: “Elmendorf became the second operational base and the first Pacific Air Forces installation to receive the Air Force's new superiority fighter.” (The term “air dominance” shows up nowhere.)
8. Same source: “Far from being just boxes of materiel or the world's largest model kit, this cargo, once assembled by the men and women of the F-22 test force, became the first of what is now officially the air superiority fighter providing air dominance for the Joint Force, the F-22A aircraft called ‘Raptor 1.’” (Note that “air dominance is just something the F-22 “air superiority fighter” provides.)
9. Same source: Article title: “Raptors to bring air superiority to Northern Edge 2006” “The F-22A, a critical component of the Global Strike Task Force, is designed to project air dominance rapidly and at great distances and defeat threats attempting to deny access to the nation's Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps.” (Again, “air dominance” is something it “projects”.)
10. Also on the same LM F-22 website that the anons link as "proof" the USAF has named it an "air dominance fighter": “As the world’s only operational fifth-generation fighter, the F-22 Raptor is, and will remain, unprecedented in its total integration of stealth and advanced avionics. … This fighter will provide air dominance and a precision ground attack capability for U.S. forces for the next 40 years.”

So, as you can see, the USAF is just as comfortable with using the term “air superiority fighter” to describe the F-22 as it is with “air dominance fighter” – and these sources date from 1997 to 2007. There is nothing official or even semi-official about the latter term and therefore no reason to prefer it over anything else. Let’s ignore the trolls, please, and get on with improving the article. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well stated Mark, this "tempest in a teacup" debate was very taxing and sapped a lot of energy. I agree, let's move forward, you have a consensus behind you for that decision. FWIW Bzuk 02:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC).

run this page through the Wikiscanner, to see where the edits come from... proving my point I made earlier regarding bias in the editing of this article. You see past edits coming from Boeing, Lockhead, the PENTAGON, LOTS AND LOTS from Washington, interestingly they tend to focus on comparisons and a variety of other military bases and institutions, Washington School Information Processing Cooperative (??)... It's even more extreme when you run Russian systems such as the S-400 Triumf through the scanner... 99th Communications Squadron San Diego, lots of different AFB... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobile1 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm noone have an opinion on why government pops up on past edits...? It just proofs my point that this ARTICLE IS BIASED and simply should be marked as such.

Many people have responded (whoever you are). Please sign your posts as well. Furthermore, your assertions do not match with Misplaced Pages policy, WP:COI. It only states that people should be careful, not that they can't edit. — BQZip01 —  00:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Airframe

I added a subsection to cover the F-22's airframe. The changes from the YF-22 to F-22 are there now. Another subsection just for that seems like oversectioning. I plan to add some description of the airframe's basic features. I don't see the chines mentioned. Also, the airframe uses a lot of composite skins and titanium. -Fnlayson 03:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Corrosion problem

F-22 Raptor's makers knew for 10 years of corrosion problem, which is costing millions to fix at Hill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.187.117.88 (talk) 06:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why can't anon IP's edit the article?

Without explanation, the article can't be edited by anonymous IP's (I would sign in, but I've forgotten my password, and don't feel like looking it up at the moment). I wanted to remove the fact check for the "100th F-22 delivered in 2007" and add this citation: http://www.f-16.net/news_article2489.html 70.243.231.144 15:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't comment here as I was unaware that the article is protected but it may very well be as there was a contentious issue that arose concerning the F-22/Typhoon and it may have received some type of sprotect protection to limit the edits to established editors (not saying that anons could not provide valuable information but that is the standard route in the first level of protection is to limit the number of editors...). FWIW Bzuk 15:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

Indeed, it was temporarily soft-protected, with the reason given as "edit warring by IPs", with an expiry time of 27 Oct. Parsecboy 15:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I s-protected it on 10/7 because of the problems with the Wikzilla socks/IPs, which were directly related to the Typhoon edit war. Since it's close to the 27th, I've gone ahead an unprotected it...IPs can edit again, but if an edit war breaks out, I'll not hesitate to s-protect again. AKRadecki 16:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that didn't last long, and due to an attack by an IP editor who has no regards for working with others, the article is sprotected again. I'm sorry, 70.243.231.144, that you didn't get a chance to make your constructive addition. I've gone ahead and added the information for you. It's too bad that the antics of a few trolls make it difficult for other well-meaning IP editors to work here. AKRadecki 16:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Comparisons Section?

I've been considering this for a while now, but should the "Comparisons" section be deleted? Now I'm not trying to cause trouble or anything, I'm merely suggesting that, since this section is apparently upsetting some people and if the section was deleted, perhaps this could help improve the article's quality. RaptorR3d 00:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I support removal of the comparison section - perhaps it will make more sense to add it again later, but there really is not too much public data about the F-22 slight envelope or flight characteristics right now. Also, I believe the comparison section was removed from the Typhoon section as it was too controversial; no one seemed to come to a consensus about what was NPOV. Nicholas SL Smith 00:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

THe section is definitely contentios, and is not a usual feature in aircraft airticles on Misplaced Pages. Concur with deletion. - BillCJ 00:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Go ahead and nuke it. Parsecboy 00:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought, why not make it as a sub-article? FWIW Bzuk 03:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC).

• A separate comparison(s) article could turn into a speculation mess worse than 4th generation jet fighter before long. -Fnlayson 03:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose some modern fighter aircraft comparison article may be a good thing - but I don't see how this information could stand alone. It seems best to allow readers to compare one article to another to compare aircraft. If we begin duplicating information, we may loose consistency. Also, I agree with Fnlayson, on other fighter pages such as the Typhoon, these sections turn into "pissing matches" between fans of respective jets. I can see the value of it - but it was be very difficult to keep on topic and accurate. Nicholas SL Smith 03:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed the sort of section that begs for fanwars. There is some good info in it, though, which should be migrated elsewhere before cutting the rest. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, unless there are any objections, then the comparisons shall be deleted for now. RaptorR3d 16:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• OK. Provide some description of your edit in the edit summary box in the future. Thanks. -Fnlayson 16:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try to remember that next time. RaptorR3d 16:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Call for a consensus on deletion/removal of the Comparisons section

Since there seems to be some disagreement about the removal of the section, I am requesting a formal vote on consensus (the following have already registered their vote):

• Agree RaptorR3d
• Agree Fnlayson
• Agree Nicholas SL Smith
• Agree Askari Mark (but salvaging what is useful)
• Agree Parsecboy
• Agree BillCJ FWIW
• Agree Bzuk 05:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC).
• Agree Gscshoyru 12:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agree Zaku 13:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agree Nicholas SL Smith I love the jet - but leave interpretation to readers.

Frankly you can all take your consensus and shove it. Those are relevant facts cited by reliable sources. They serve to help illustrate the F-22's advanced features and capabilities. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, since when does the decision to include or exclude relevant facts constitute something you vote on. Why not call it "Misplaced Pages - the website where we vote on what is factual". 162.84.187.178 06:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of your personal views, Misplaced Pages operates by consensus to decide contentious issues. Register your vote and give the process time to develop a consensus from interested parties. My suggestion to you is to offer an alternative: perhaps creating a separate sub-article? working with others? taking a new direction? FWIW Bzuk 06:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC).

The above IP is another sock-puppet of User:WIkzilla. It's easy to tell. Until he changes his behavior, it's best to just ingore his opinions till he moves on. - BillCJ 06:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

- BillCJ 06:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

SIGH. Article is s-protected once again thanks to Wikzilla's IP attack. AKRadecki 13:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

On that note, is there any reason for the "The US Airforce Claims it cannot be matched by any projcted aircraft" in the introduction of the article? I'll admit, while I do support the F-22, I feel that that statement is really not necessary for the article. Any other thoughts? RaptorR3d 18:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• I had moved that to Comparisons, but a couple IPs keep adding it back to the lead. That probably should be moved, but I'm not sure about where. The bottom on the Characteristics sections seems like a decent spot. -Fnlayson 18:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Claims of the USAF aren't pertinent to the aircraft. I claim it can't fly the Incredible Hulk into orbit, but I shouldn't and wont add it to the article. Nicholas SL Smith 00:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's fine for the intro ... and the USAF did put a huge amount of (taxpayer) money into developing it to be so. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll submit to that - as long as it doesn't mislead to anyone or look like it is portraying a fact. Nicholas SL Smith 02:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's wrong and doesnt belong in here at all. The statement is a fairly dumb one. Claiming that no past nor future plane can match it is a marketing statement and does not belong here if it's so obviously wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobile1 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between "projected" and "future". Projected fighters are those such as MiG 1.44 or the Sukhoi PAK FA. It's not a marketing statement; the F22 wasn't built by the Airforce; it's merely the primary operator. Parsecboy 18:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fuel capacity / materials

Hi everyone

I'm Nova13 from the german Misplaced Pages (userpage, discussion). I found some useful infos about the fuel capacity and the materials of the F-22. Here are the facts:

Fuel capacity

Materials

• Titanium: 40%
• Composites: 24%
• Aluminum: 15%
• Steel: 6%
• Other: 15%

Source: Tecnical Order 00-105E-9, 1 Feb. 2006, Rev. 11 Page 15/16

Feel free to integrate this information. Feedback welcome! --62.226.68.45 14:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• The external fuel seems odd. I've never seen anything about the F-22 actually using external hardpoints for anything. That'd mess up its stealthiness. -Fnlayson 17:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have. It allows the F-22 to carry a greater load of fuel and/or weapons when stealth is not a factor, such as after the enemy's anti-air capability has been eliminated. I suspect that drop tanks could be used on the initial ingress to the target to extend range, then dropped before entering hostile space. - BillCJ 17:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• That makes sense. I don't think my F-22 book mentions that or I haven't run across it yet. The F-35 will probably have more of that. -Fnlayson 17:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My Frawley Military book states it has 4 hardpoints capabel of 5000 lbs each. THough I haven't found a direct reference to when it would carry external weapons, it would make no sense to build heavier wings that could structurally carry external stores if you knew you could never use them. - BillCJ 17:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• The F-22 was specifically designed with the capability for external hardpoints, where (as mentioned above) stealth was not a factor, or the need was dire. Every missile in service in the USAF can be fitted to said hardpoints, as can aforementioned drop tanks.

Also, however, external munitions or fuel also slow the plane down. Supercruising would cost more fuel, and the top speed would be limited, by a few mph or a couple hundred, depending on cargo. In addition to this, the Raptor's manueverability is also limited by external usage, and is why internal stores are so important with the this plane. Hope this helps!Darkƒire 23:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• FWIW...here's a pic that's not really good enough for the main page, but which clearly shows the external fuel tanks. This pair went back and forth overhead several times in the R-2515 supersonic corridor over Mojave. AKRadecki 00:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Cut it out

Hey who kepts deleting the facts that the jet was used by the US air Force in the popular cultures section?(TougHHead 00:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC))

It looks like everyone who comes across this statement. It's redundant, and has been reverted by a number of editors as plain "poorly written." FWIW Bzuk 02:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

Also books are also not ever ever notable and thats considered spamming, hacking and a computer crime. Plus I read those books and never saw the part where the Raptor is in any book.(TougHHead 05:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC))

The F-22 has been featured in numerous books, such as Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor (1994). A lengthy mission by F-22s dominates the last part of the book and Fighter Wing (1995) where the F-22 features as a major new combat aircraft in Clancy's non-fiction book. Clive Cussler's Dark Watch (2005) has a F-22 in a secret mission to take out a Syrian foe. BTW, where did you get the information that citing books in popular culture is a computer crime? FWIW Bzuk 05:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

TougHHead, please stop throwing a hissy fit. Some things are notable, some aren't. I've read most of those books and saw all those films when you were still in diapers. But I realize Misplaced Pages has rules, and I follow them. Notability is a policy, not a guideline, and we have to follow it; like it or not. THose books, games, films, and TV shows we all like and love have articles, and that is the proper place to mention what those films contain. So please, stop whining, and try to enjoy being able to contribute to making meaningful articles about the aircraft you love even better by focusing on the aircraft themselves. - BillCJ 05:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue of lists of "appearances in popular culture" has been raised before and addressed with a sort of guidelines by the Military History Project, the guideline is here: WP:MILMOS#POP. These guidelines preclude lists or sections naming one appearance after the other. --Deon Steyn 08:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Also I looked up Hollywood and how are they supposed to film a 700 pound advanced tactical fighter in the boundaries of Hollywood? Jets can't land in the Hollywood boundaries and needed a very long runway which it had none. (TougHHead 06:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

What are you talking about? Bzuk 06:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

When filming the jet you need room for the big aircraft but Hollywood got no room.(TougHHead 06:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? FWIW Bzuk 06:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

I think he;s nit-picking about the mention regarding the F-22's "prominent Hollywood debut". It appears TougH is trying to get back at editors like me who have been limiting the Pop culture appearences he's been adding by trying to take everything he thinks is equal to his items out. Only thing is, he's going about it bass-akwards, and may end up earning himself antoehr block for disruptive behaivor. Also, he doens't seem to realize that a lot of us aircraft aritcle editors actually don't want ANY pop culture netions in any of the articles, period/full-stop. However, we abide by the basic WIkipedia principle of following consensus, even when we disagree. That means THREE Transformers in the F-15 article, and flight sims in pop culture sections where applicable. - BillCJ 07:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Beyond that, I believe something odd is going on here (now, that's an understatement given this is Misplaced Pages!). See: where this argument is being drawn out in a similar fashion. FWIW, it seems some people have lot of time on their hands. Bzuk 14:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

I was here a while ago and thought the pop culture section was a bit odd - but even more bizarre was the erroneous mention of Transformers. It was clearly The Hulk. Duh.;)Happysomeone 00:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Per the instructions on the main page, I'll put off the proposed change above for a short period of time so others can review it. Here's an independent source that verifies the small but significant role played by the F-22 - A role significant enough that it struck me as odd it wasn't mentioned. The jets appear twice, for about 2 to 3 minutes of the film. They try to kill "The Hulk" both times in extended sequences. A quote from one of the pilots in the first scene: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286716/quotes Happysomeone 00:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Notably the F-22 pilot, actor Randy Neville, is credited: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286716/fullcredits Happysomeone 01:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, look here for the mention of the other significant scene. It's about halfway down the page: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286716/triviaHappysomeone 01:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's still a minor role and non-notable. More links won't change that. -Fnlayson 01:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we please end this discussion? For some reason edit warring on a popular Jet Fighter is not very fun along with arguing over the tlak pages.(TougHHead 01:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC))

1. "USAF F-22 Raptor fact sheet"

• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class military aviation articles
• Military aviation task force articles
• B-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• B-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• B-Class aviation articles
• B-Class aircraft articles
• WikiProject Aircraft articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles