Talk:F-22 Raptor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the F-22 Raptor article.
Article policies
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:
Archive
Archives
Archive 1

Archive 2
Archive 3


Contents

[edit] Cockpit

I propose adding a new sub-secton, immedaitely after Avionics, entitled "Cockpit", with suitable references, using some or all of the following information:

[edit] Cockpit

[edit] Overview

The cockpit was one of the first so-called “glass-cockpits” without traditional round dials, standby or dedicated gauges and represents a marked improvement on the cockpit design of previous jets.

[edit] Start Up

There are only three steps to take the F-22 from cold to full readiness for takeoff: the pilot places the battery switch 'on,' places the auxiliary power unit switch momentarily to 'start' and then places both throttles in 'idle.' The engines start sequentially right to left and the auxiliary power unit automatically shuts down. All subsystems and avionics are brought on line and built-in testis are made. Navigation information and pilot's personal avionics preferences are loaded automatically. The airplane can be ready to taxi in less than 30 seconds after engine start.

[edit] HMI

The GEC-built monochrome Head-Up Display (HUD) offers a wide field of view (30 horizontal, 25 vertically) and serves as a primary flight instrument for the pilot. The HUD is approximately 4.5 inches tall with standardized symbology compatible with that used head down. The HUD is planned to also have a rubber buffer strip on it that will effectively shield the polycarbonate of the canopy when it flexes during a bird-strike and should prevent it shattering. Design is also underway for a HUD that will collapse during a bird-strike. The Integrated Control Panel (ICP) is the primary means for manual pilot entry of communications, navigation, and autopilot data. Located under the glare shield and HUD in the upper centre the instrument panel, this keypad entry system also has some double click functions, much like a computer mouse for rapid pilot access/use. There are six liquid crystal display (LCD) panels in the cockpit. These present information in full colour, are fully readable in direct sunlight and offer less weight and size than traditional CRT displays. Two Up-Front Displays (UFDs) (3"x4") located to the left and right of the ICP are used to display Integrated Caution/ Advisory/ Warning (ICAW) data, communications/ navigation/ identification (CNI) data and also serve as the Stand-by Flight instrumentation Group and Fuel Quantity Indicator (SFG/FQI). The Stand-by Flight Group also presented on LCD, shows basic information, such as artificial horizon, needed to fly the aircraft in IMC. The SFG is tied to the last source of power in the aircraft, so if everything else fails, the pilot will still be able to fly the aircraft. The colour Primary Multi-Function Display (PMFD) (8"x8") is located in the middle of the instrument panel, under the ICP. It is the pilot's principal display for aircraft navigation (including waypoints and route of flight) and Situation Assessment (SA). Three Secondary Multi-Function Displays (SMFDs) (6.25" x 6.25") are located on either side of the PMFD and under the PMFD between the pilot's knees. These are used for displaying tactical (both offensive and defensive) information as well as non-tactical information (such as checklists, subsystem status, engine thrust output, and stores management).

[edit] Integrated Caution, Advisory and Warning System (ICAW)

To reduce pilot workload in flight, the uniquely designed integrated caution, advisory and warning system (ICAW) can display a total of 12 individual ICAW messages at one time on the up-front display and additional ones can appear on sub pages of the display. All ICAW fault messages are filtered to eliminate extraneous messages and tell the pilot specifically and succinctly what the problem is. For example, when an engine fails, the generator and hydraulic cautions normally associated with an engine being shutdown are suppressed, and the pilot is provided the specific problem in the form of an engine shutdown message. ICAW also incorporates an electronic checklist. If multiple ICAWs occur, their associated checklists are selected by moving a pick box over the desired ICAW and depressing the checklist button. Associated checklists are automatically linked together.

[edit] Cockpit Display Symbology

Enemy aircraft are shown as red triangles, friendly aircraft as green circles, unknown aircraft as yellow squares, and wingmen are shown as blue. Surface-to-air missile sites are represented by pentagons, along with an indication of missile type and its lethal range. An in-filled triangle means that the pilot has a missile firing-quality solution against that target. The pilot has a cursor on each screen, and he can use this to request ask extra information more information. The Inter/Intra Flight Data Link (IFDL) allows a number of F-22 to be linked together to trade information without radio calls with each F-22s in a flight or between flights.

[edit] Hands-On Throttle and Stick (HOTAS)

The F-22 features a side-stick controller (like an F-16) and two throttles that are the aircraft's primary flight controls. The GEC-built stick is located on the right console with a swing-out, adjustable arm rest. The stick is force sensitive and moves only about one-quarter of an inch. The throttles are located on the left console. HOTAS switches, both shape and texture coded, are used to control more than 60 different time-critical functions.

[edit] Accommodation

The cockpit accommodates the 0.5 to 99.5 percentile, i.e. the body size of the central 99% of the U.S. Air Force pilot population. This represents the largest range of pilots accommodated by any tactical aircraft now in service. The rudder pedals are adjustable. The pilot has 15-degree over-the-nose visibility as well as excellent over-the-side and aft visibility.

[edit] Lighting

The cockpit interior lighting is fully Night Vision Goggle (NVG) compatible, as is the exterior lighting. The cockpit panels feature extended life, self-balancing, electro-luminescent (EL) edge-lit panels with an integral life-limiting circuit.

[edit] Life Support

The F-22 life support system integrates all critical components of clothing, protective gear, and aircraft equipment necessary to sustain the pilot's life while flying the aircraft. In the past, these components had been designed and produced separately. These include:  An on-board oxygen generation system (OBOGS) that supplies breathable air to the pilot.  An integrated breathing regulator/anti-g valve (BRAG) that controls flow and pressure to the mask and pressure garments.  A chemical/biological/cold-water immersion (CB/CWI) protection ensemble.  An upper body counter pressure garment and a lower body anti-G garment acts a partial pressure suit at high altitudes.  An air-cooling garment, also to be used by pilots on the Army's RAH-66 Comanche helicopter providing thermal relief for the pilot.  Helmet and helmet-mounted systems including C/B goggles and C/B hood; and the MBU-22/P breathing mask and hose system. Escape-system tests have proven the life-support system to wind speeds of up to 600 knots. Current life-support systems are designed to provide protection only up to 450 knots. The head mounted portions of the life-support system are approximately 30 percent lighter than existing systems, which improves mobility and endurance time for pilots. With its advanced design, the HGU-86/P helmet that will be used by F-22 pilots during EMD reduces the stresses on a pilot's neck by 20 percent during high-speed ejection compared to the current HGU-55/P helmets. The F-22 helmet fits more securely as the result of an ear cup tensioning device and is easily fitted to a pilot's head. The helmet provides improved passive noise protection and incorporates an Active Noise Reduction (ANR) system for superior pilot protection. The chemical/biological/cold water immersion clothing meets or exceeds Air Force requirements and fit a wider range of sizes and body shapes (the central 99%).

[edit] Canopy

The canopy is approximately 140 inches long, 45 inches wide, 27 inches tall, and weighs approximately 360 pounds. It is a rotate/translate design, i.e. comes down, slides forward, and locks in place with pins. The canopy's transparency (by Sierracin) features the largest piece of monolithic polycarbonate material being formed today. It has no canopy bow and offers the pilot superior optics (Zone 1 quality) throughout (not just in the area near the HUD) and offers the requisite stealth features. The canopy is resistant to chemical/biological and environmental agents, and has been successfully tested to withstand the impact of a four-pound bird at 350 knots. It also protects the pilot from lightning strikes. The 3/4" polycarbonate transparency is actually made of two 3/8" thick sheets that are heated and fusion bonded, with the sheets melding to become a single-piece and then drape forged, i.e. no laminate as in the F-16. Post-ejection canopy-seat-pilot collision has been designed out as the framed canopy weighs slightly more on one side than the other slices nearly ninety degrees to the right as it clears the aircraft.

[edit] ACES II Ejection Seat

The Ejection Seat is an improved version of the ACES II (Advanced Concept Ejection Seat) used in nearly every other U.S.A.F. jet combat aircraft, with a centre mounted ejection control. Improvements over the previous seat models include: - An active arm restraint system to eliminate arm flail injuries during high speed ejections. - An improved fast-acting seat stabilization drogue parachute system to provide increased seat stability and safety, located behind the pilot's head and is mortar-deployed. - A new electronic seat and aircraft sequencing system that improves the timing of the ejection event sequence. - A larger oxygen bottle providing more breathing air to support ejection at higher altitudes (if required). The system utilizes the standard analogue three-mode seat sequencer that automatically senses the seat speed and altitude, and then selects the proper mode for optimum seat performance.

[edit] Discussion

Please offer your views and/or suggestions. Many thanks, Wittlessgenstein (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

One major thing this needs before it can be added into the article is some sourcing. It could also use some more wikilinks. A couple of specific fixes that I noticed in a brief scan of the proposed section are:
  • the "centre" in the ACES II section needs to use American English
  • U.S.A.F. -> USAF per MOS guidelines
Hope that helps. Parsecboy (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC).
Many thanks. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Two small points, the first being that it is large amount of information that will require sourcing and the second is that it is a large amount of information. Have you considered a sub-article based on this material? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC).
Many thanks. I agree a sub-aticle would be much better. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

First look inside of the F-22.--HDP (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • That's a really good link HDP. Many thanks. Even though it's only the demonstrator in a dome, it gives a really good idea of pllot interaction with the displays via XY cursor. I think it would be a useful link in the artcile itself. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that we have the dedicated cockpit page, does the paragraph in the main article really need to be expanded and if so by how much? Wittlessgenstein (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I think it should have more than just 1 sentence like does now. Something that touches on why it is the zenith in glass-cockpit design. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Protection of this page has expired and I've not renewed it. Broad consensus seems to exist as to what cost to include in the article, and a compromise solution was held out last week to the one dissenting voice. That editor has not commented on the suggested solution. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No solution yet, since no change yet. Just because you dont comment on christmass eve dosent mean you have changed viewpoint. The problem existed before and it still exist now. --Financialmodel (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC) The price used in this article is based on original research, and false research that it. I wanted to correct this but was prevented, also i wanted to improve the cost section with UPC and unit program cost, so readers see what is what, with refference to what the difference is, but this too is prevented, eventhough we have clarl numbers fom 3 US congress agencies. In short, stop original research in fly away cost, which is manipulated numbers cherrypicked for small quantities with low pricetags in a multiyear contract. Using single year budget estimates in multiyear contract as source for the real price is something no economist would ever do. the 20 f-22's you picked the pricetag of isnt even active yet. --Financialmodel (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is resolved. Consensus has been reached; it need not be unanimous. The fact that you couldn’t sway consensus to your cherry-picked highest-number-ever-reported price for the F-22 does not make the officially released numbers “original research” or “false research”; it just simply doesn’t suit the objective of your personal POV campaign. For someone who styles himself “FinancialModel”, you seem to possess little knowledge of commercial economics in general or US budget processes specifically. If you did, you would not make so many absurd statements and claims (such as mistaking “UPC” – the abbreviation for “Unit Program Cost” – as two different things).
Any budget analyst familiar with the aerospace industry would be surprised to hear that “flyaway cost” is “original research”; rather, they would recognize it as a very traditional type of cost (that had been around and used for decades before UPCs came into use). They also understand that airplanes don’t have just one cost, but a range of different costs, each including different things and used for different purposes – and they appreciate that only the same types of costs should be used in comparisons. Any professional economist is well aware of the “bath tub effect” in the production costs of manufactured items: As production ramps up, production teams advance up their learning curves, and production rates approach the most economically efficient production rate, the cost initially drops, then stabilizes for a long period, until production begins tapering off at the end of the product’s life, when costs rise as production rates move away from the optimum. You might be surprised to learn that economists actually do consider the latest price to be the most accurate current price of a commodity, and use it in preference to prices of several years previously. They also understand that the whole purpose of a multi-year contract is to stabilize production for lower cost to the producer and a lower price for the buyer – and that that’s considered a good thing. This is all Econ 101, really. It's a new year, so why don't you please resolve to put aside the disruptive trolling and try to be a constructive editor instead? Askari Mark (Talk) 00:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Just don't forget that the majority of people that read the article are neither budget analysts nor familiar with the aerospace industry; not to mention disinclined to read six articles just to understand one. Articles being difficult to understand was one of the things the Nature review of wikipedia found as a flaw. Articles, or large parts of them, are all too often written by experts in a way that assumes an advanced understand of the general topic, and requires one to decipher; particularly the science articles. Just try to keep in mind how the things in the article look to someone that doesn't have all that specialized knowledge. If it's all written with that one thing in mind, these sorts of problems will be a lot harder to push. More information and more clarity are nearly always better than less. -Graptor 66.42.151.173 (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hate to poke in again, but after some thought, and finding some articles in the WP namespace that I hadn't seen before, I feel more than a little compelled to do so. I think I can more clearly explain what I was trying to say back in December now. I gather the controversy has largely been resolved, but I know that I can sometimes be less than clear in getting things across, and was apparently so in this case.
First a couple minor, but relevant, personal details. I'm a huge fan of the F-22. Have been ever since I heard about the thing. I've been using the nick 'Graptor' since 1998, a personalized version of 'Raptor', a term I've had something of a fascination with since I first heard it. When the F-22 got named 'Raptor' it was already my favorite aircraft, bar none, but that was one hell of a bonus. I'd give damn near anything to fly one of the things, impossible though that may be.
Thing is though, it's a surprisingly controversial aircraft. Specifically the US Congress decided they didn't like the amount of money being spent on it, and wanted to cut it, but at that point the only way to cut it was to cut procurement. Which they did. Repeatedly. It's such a controversial topic that it's actually managed to creep into the mainstream media from time to time, with the issue of costs always coming up. Nearly always a cost-per-aircraft is cited, most recently generally in the neighborhood of $185 million, though in some cases as a derivative of the total program cost divided over the number of aircraft, a figure which goes up dramatically with lessened procurement.
Wikipedia for, as far as I can determine, completely valid reasons, uses the 'flyaway cost', which is, as I've gathered from the comments available, simply what it would cost if you went to Lockheed Martin/Boeing and wanted to buy one right off the line, with all the startup and development costs excluded. This figure is far lower than generally quoted figures, in particular as regards the controversial issue: the perceived high cost of the program as related to the number of aircraft acquired.
The problem is in fact pretty much specific to this one aircraft as far as the cost goes, and exclusively because of the controversy involved. Laypeople who hear of the controversy may very well come to wikipedia looking for more information. To such a person, the fact that flyaway cost was being used wasn't apparent, what 'flyaway cost' referred to is/was not readily apparent, and perhaps most importantly, the reason the flyaway cost differs so drastically from the figures often quoted by the opponents of additional procurement isn't readily apparent either. Combined they could serve to produce more edit wars(well meaning users changing 'unit cost' to what they think is the 'right' number based on other sources, not understanding why flyaway cost is used), a general confusion among people seeking information on that topic(particularly if they don't read further into the article. Many of them will probably be looking for confimation of a figure only and not more in-depth information), and perhaps worst of all, lead some to conclude that wikipedia is simply wrong.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the issue regarding the procurement and costs of the F-22 is far from dead. The US Air Force has never been happy with the number of aircraft congress has authorized, and the recent discovery of structural problems in at least part of the F-15 fleet could very well bring it right back to the fore. If it does end up being used as an argument for increased procurement of the F-22 to replace, rather than supplement, the F-15 fleet(as was intended by the Air Force all along!), it's all too likely the ensuing discussion will drive even more people to this article, and all the more important that it be clear to those people.
It was once said that there are three kinds of lies. Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. The whole controversy over the cost contains massive amounts of the latter, and it being a substantial issue that's dogged this aircraft for many, many years, I tend to think it requires some extra effort to make very clear, to the layman specifically seeking such information, what the actual numbers involved actually are within the article itself. Flyaway cost is a great, useful addition, particularly for an infobox. It just needs to be clear to some random person reading the article that is flyaway cost(achieved! yay!), what specifically 'flyaway cost' refers to, and how it relates to the other numbers they'd have heard tossed around so they can understand why it's so much lower.
-Graptor 66.42.151.173 (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I found the procurement section very clear on the cost of the F - 22, it clearly states the current cost, and why the cost is so high. However, I would change the unit cost in the blue box at the top to a current unit cost at 339 million, and an additional unit cost at 137.5 million. This would clarify the difference to the casual observer. TwistedWeasel (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead paragraphs

I am requesting a discussion to fend off an edit-revert "conflab." I had placed the paragraph in this section as it provided a general statement regarding the capability of the F-22. I also consider the edit a "good faith" edit which necessitates other editors to alter or revise but not to outright revert the passage unless it contravenes MoS or other stipulations. The discussions on this page do not specifically address the issue. Read Help:Reverting, For your convenience:

If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it. If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC).

  • The comparison paragraph in the lead was part of the Comparisions section that we decided to remove in October. See Oct. 23 version. Some could say it falls under that consensus or does not. I think the paragraph should be moved to the Design section or just removed. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I think that the USAF and a fairly current high ranking RAAF officer are sufficient sources to include this on the basis of notability by recognized experts in the field. Obviously the "best" is going to be somewhat subjective. That however is not the point of including it in here. I think the real reason why it needs to be included is to put in context why the USAF is willing to pay upwards of 130M for each copy. I think how the air force and other experts aside from the manufacturer view the aircraft and the importance of the ability in their eyes at least to dominate the skies is very much relevant. While it may not belong in the lead paragraph I do think it is important enough to include it somewhere. Last, I was not the one who put it there originally. I noticed that it was recently removed (and that it was sourced) without discussion.Downtrip (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the opinion of, say, engineers would matter. The opinion of military officers on engineering design is not worth much. If only because "best" means nothing. Is it the fastest plane? Has it the longer range? Is it the stealthiest? Is its design so good that vast quantities for absurdly low price were produced? Etc. I think this sentence should simply be removed.
And it has another problem. It attracts fanboys, trolls, etc.CyrilleDunant (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Cyrille, I see your point, these are pretty "broad" statements and even though they are sourced, are subject to controversy. The reason for my moving the passage up into the "lead" was that it seemed to be a defining statement of the purpose of the aircraft, ie. as an "air superiority" weapons system. I certainly am open to suggestions as to what to do with the statements and if the consensus is to alter, revise, reposition or even redact or remove them them, so be it; my main contention in initiating this discussion "string" is to engage discourse as well as stymie an edit/revert war. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC).
I understand the point, I'll just note that it is not so much a question of sources, but of relevance of opinion. My suggestion would be to keep the U.S. Air force opinion (they are users/buyers, after all), and remove the "external" opinions -- I don't believe Australia is considered for exports, or if it were, the cost of buying this plane would be outrageously prohibitive.CyrilleDunant (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Whether it attracts fanboys or trolls should be irrelevant to the discussion. Either it stays because it has merit or it does not. I think that is very much a slippery slope. Should no controversial information be given on Wikipedia because it may upset someone?Downtrip (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It attracts troll only if it is open to partial interpretation. The current version is pretty good.CyrilleDunant (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The opinion on military officers, many of whom have advanced engineering degrees are at the end of the day the most relevant opinions. It is their entire rational for buying the jet in the first place. If we put in price then we need to put in why they are willing to pay the price. The user feels that it is the best jet period. I am not here to argue if it is or is not. They think so and that is what matters.Downtrip (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This, I disagree with. Indeed, they specifically do not pay the price: the taxpayer does. The engineering opinion of an aeronautical engineer has value, the tactical/strategic opinion of an officer has value. Any opinion of anyone saying item X is the best in category Y is utterly uninteresting except if you are interested in the person's opinion.CyrilleDunant (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
As for Angus Houston's comments. Again, a high ranking officer in a friendly air force that has close ties to the USAF, has no competing interest(other contemporary jets are not manufactured in Australia), and does in fact have an interest in buying F-22s somewhere down the road is again very relevant. Do a bit of research on current events. There is a large and vocal contingent in Australia that would like to see them buy F-22s instead of Super Hornets and F-35s.Downtrip (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
There might well be, but this does not mean the US would sell them, or that those wanting to buy F-22 are a (political) majority. Minority opinions on WP should be labelled as such.CyrilleDunant (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I am all for moving it to the characteristics section of the entry but it should not be removedDowntrip (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
In the end it comes down to this: you think those opinion adds value to the article, I think they don't. I will not edit to get it removed, because I have no strong feelings about it, but I would support a move for deletion.CyrilleDunant (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Since downtrip calls for peer reviewed references. This should removed! This is not backuped per peer reviewed references! Then must 99% of this F-22 article and Wikipedia be deleted. Or measure we here with double standards, downtrip? --HDP (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
HDP, please review WP:POINT and WP:AGF. Nowhere in this section does he call for peer reviewed references in the stated capacity. — BQZip01 — talk 01:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • HDP, note the word "claim". There is a difference. Claims are included all the time in articles. The USAF, and at least one high ranking member of the RAAF publicly states that they feel it is the best fighter. Again whether it is is is not is irrelevant here. It does however speak volumes as to why the USAF, the RAAF, and the JDSF all either want it or want more of them despite the cost. That I think is an important fact that should be included.Downtrip (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
With Claims is that such a thing. You can claim that black is white. You can claim that the F-22 are optical invisible. Is it therefore true? How can an RAAF officer claim the F-22 would be the best machine? How much F-22 has the RAAF?
@BQZip01; Downtrip calls in Eurofighter and 4th generation fighter for peer reviewed references! He measure here with double standards!--HDP (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "SENIOR SKY"

Is that what you wanted when you asked for citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.17.128 (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • None of these links: [1][2] [3] listed in your edit summary appear to be valid references. So no. Also, references should be put in article. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with Fnlayson, none of these are reliable sources. I'll leave it to someone else to decide whether to remove the reference to "Senior Sky" again or not. Parsecboy (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I did my best to follow the link, but it was no good. Maybe an active link on the page. Supergodzilla20|90 20:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Which link? All of the 3 above worked for me. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I was talking about the link that the IP posted in his edit summary, I followed that one. Supergodzilla20|90 21:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually 74.134.17.128 posted 3 links (listed above) in the edit summary. No biggies though... -Fnlayson (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I couldn't find anything with internet searches on *.mil & *.gov domains. I'll check my books at home later to verify. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[4] and [5] list Senior Sky for Advanced Tactical Fighter, but I would think it belongs in the ATF article not here since it doesn't appear to be specific to the F-22 alone. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever float's your boat. Supergodzilla20|90 23:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] F-22 in Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem

I'm unsure whether adding info in the pop culture section is necessary, but it does raise something interesting. In the film, the F-22 drops a nuclear bomb which is not fitted with a JDAM. I'm not sure if this is possible

May be worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.69.38.87 (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, considering the yield, fitting a JDAM guidance unit really isn't necessary. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
JDAM is just a kit that converts a 'Dumb Bomb' into a guided one, literally by bolting on the relevant fins and electronics. Thus as far as holding and dropping it, there really isn't any difference other than the electronics hookups. As long as the onboard computer had the appropriate software to calculate and display the impact point to the pilot,(CCIP for example) there's no reason it couldn't use an unguided bomb. So long as the bomb would physically fit in the bay or on one of the wing hardpoints(though as discussed, using the wing hardpoints DESTROYS the stealth). -Graptor 66.42.151.173 (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Culture References

After noticing the note in the pop culture section (as I was about to add a link to the stub on the F-22 ADF video game) I thought I'd ask thoughts first. This game doesn't just have the F-22 in it casually, the F-22 is the whole point of it. Also, it is in the orphan project, and I don't see much hope for it if it can't be linked to from here. Thoughts? F-22: Air Dominance Fighter Elliott Shultz (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

There must be a dozen games featuring the F-22 as the main character, some are listed on F-22 (disambiguation). Why don't you link it on the F-22 Total Air War article as its predecessor and the EF2000 (computer game) page as a successor. Beyond that, I can't see a good reason to link this and every other F-22 game on this page. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Excellent point(s), I esp. had not considered whether the game was notable to the F-22, vs. the other way around, and good idea for the links. Elliott Shultz (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering here. But wasn't there a short copyright fight over the F-22 use in video games? Lockheed thought they could give exclusive use for it, until the US stepped in and said it was public domain, being property of the US. 70.241.247.215 (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Prior to transformers I'm pretty sure the f-22 was featured in the movie The Incredible Hulk, the hulk grabs onto it and the F-22 pilot takes him for a ride. Is this worth mentioning? Seems like that would be it's Hollywood debut but it seems pretty likely that they were CG F-22's and not actual ones considering the angles/shots used. Shatzky (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

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


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

[edit] Pictures

That 3rd to last picture/outline of the F-22 is of a YF-22 not the F-22. You may want to specify that. you've done a great job! Theo Wiersema

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

[edit] EMD

The article uses the acronym "EMD" several times without explaining it. Anyone who knows what's meant by that, please add it in. --Reuben (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Stands for engineering and manufacturing development. It's the phase after flight testing involving the beginning of full production leading up to initial operational capability. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! My guesses were totally wrong. --Reuben (talk) 05:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Opinionated Quotes

I propose the removal of the opinionated, unsubstantiated quotes at the beginning of the F-22 Raptor article. There are two quotes; one from the USAF and one from the Chief of the Australian Defence Force. Both of which are nothing more than the personal views of naturally biased parties. I am of the belief that this does nothing in the way of educating readers on the aircraft. It would require little effort to scour the internet for various quotes regarding other aircraft, and then using them to litter the respective articles, but it would amount to nothing more than compromising the factual authenticity of the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigdon86 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Unsubstantiated?? All that is properly referenced. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks like we got another one-edit-wonder posting on a topic that's been under dispute since July 2007 by everybody and his brother's socks. Just be careful here. - BillCJ (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


I didn't say they weren't referenced; I said they were not factual. There is no need to post opinionated items within a factual text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigdon86 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

that they've said it IS factual. If what they said is true is open to debate I suppose. That they're biased in favor the aircraft is undoubtedly true, but keep in mind that *EVERYONE* is biased, including any possible source that can be used, and in fact each and every contributor to the article and any debate about it, including yourself. In your case you sound more than a little hostile and defensive right off the bat, a stance which is likely to attract all sorts of enmity from some of the very people you're trying to convince if it escalates. Keep in mind WP:MASTODONS and we can avoid the kinds of stress, strife, and most importantly punishments that come with such Bad Things as flame wars, edit wars, and personal attacks.
Keep in mind that quotes from people involving the aircraft can be and in this case are indeed relevant to the article. The key is to always, always, always keep in mind wikipedia's very strict Neutral Point of View rules. Any praise, or criticism, should be presented always in a neutral and balanced way. Simply including it does NOT make it non-neutral, unless it's included in a way that presents it as the 'correct' or 'better' point of view. In this case both quotes are qualified as being 'claims'. They are not in fact presented as facts, but as claims by the primary user and a potential user. It is very explicitly stated that they are in fact opinions and not necessarily true simply by the way they are included.
Rather than trying to get them removed(especially by confrontation! That's just bad things waiting to happen), a better response might be to find some illustrations of opposing viewpoints and include them as well, in order to improve the balance of it.
Also Rigdon, a few quick wikipedia tips. If you place a Colon(:) at the beginning of a line, it will indent that line, allowing a 'threading' structure. Each colon added does one indentation. Each level of a thread can be indicated simply by adding one more colon was on the last thread. None for the initial post, one for the reply, two for the reply to the reply, etc, making following the flow of the discussion far easier. You can also automatically sign and datestamp your posts by including four tildes(~) in a row at the end, which can be automatically inserted by clicking the 'sign your username' link just under the bold warning about not using non GFDL compatible text. These two things make attributing specific comments and understanding the discussion far easier on talk pages, and will contribute greatly to getting your point of view heard. -Graptor 66.42.151.173 (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear munitions

I believe, but I have no confirmation, that the F-22 is capable of carrying current air dropped/launched nuclear munitions. The B83 nuclear bomb article states that it is capable of being delivered by the F-22, but it has no citations. Is it possible that we can find citations for this? — scetoaux (talk) (My contributions.) 03:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-helpful poking around: both the B83 and the B61 are approx 2 feet longer than the 1000 pound JDAMs the F-22 is stated to be able to carry internally, in fact they're closer in size to a 2000 pound JDAM than a 1000 pounder at about 12 feet, at least that's what wikipedia and its sources say. An AMRAAM however is about 12 feet long, so length wise either would probably fit.
Diameter wise you got a different story. B83 is about 18 inches, B61 about 13 inches. A 2000 pound JDAM is either around 18 inches, or a bit over 14 inches, depending on version. A 1000 pound JDAM is either 14 inches or not quite 11, again depending on version.
Weight on the other hand... B83 clocks in at around 2400 pounds, well over what the F-22 is supposedly capable of carrying internally. B61 is about 700 pounds.
Leading to the ultimate conclusion, assuming all this data is right, that if the dang thing can carry a B83, it's probably only on the wing pylons, the bugger's almost without a doubt too big and heavy for the bay. Granted it can probably carry just about anything we've got that's airdroppable on the pylons, as they're estimated at a capacity of 5000 pounds. A B61 might, might be possible internally(though it sounds like it might possibly be a tightish squeeze). Obvious problem there is you'd have to be nuts to carry stuff on the pylons atm, as it completely negates the stealth. Thus while it might be possible, a B83 ain't likely to happen anytime soon. Unless they get those stealth wing pods working and make them freaking big.
Trying to find something to verify that has so far turned up nada. Trying to get something about the B61 possibility in particular is heavily complicated by the fact that an old F-22 Flight Sim(which I have, actually), included such a possibility in the game. Being able to drop nukes was one of the most touted features of the game, so most attempts to link the F-22 to the B61 turn up that game high on the list. -Graptor 66.42.151.173 (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Slight Correction. I got going so fast that I missed one thing, it's capable of carrying two 1000 pound JDAMs *with* two AMRAAMs, all of it in the bay. This suggests there's some extra room in the bay anyway, potentially allowing for larger sized ordinance if the AMRAAMs are left out(assuming it has an appropriate rack in the center of the bays to hold it, and that it's not too big in diameter to fit. I've got no evidence as to either, pure speculation here). The counter-arguement there is that nowhere have I ever heard anything about it being able to carry a 2000 pound bomb internally, AMRAAMs or not. As the B83 is reasonably close in size and weight to a 2000 pound conventional, finding somewhere that it could carry a bomb of that size would suggest(but obviously not prove) that possibility. Unfortunately, everything I've ever seen or heard indicated that two 1000 pounders was the internal limit. -Graptor 66.42.151.173 (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unit Cost

I'm questioning the unit cost of the F-22 at ~$140 million. There's a discrepancy with the F-35 Lightning. The F-22 was supposed to be the pinnacle fighter for the USAF. The F-35 was supposed to be a "watered down" version of the F-22 and an F-16 replacement. How is it that we have a ~$140 million unit cost for F-22 and ~$200 million unit cost for the F-35? One of the Wiki's is wrong. I should add that a recent report by the GAO said the F-35 program had ballooned in cost and is also behind schedule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by gelato (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Black-Out-Button

We need to add black-out-button property. This is very important for F/A-22 Raptor datas. Raptor is the unique fighter jet with black-out-button. 'Cause pilots cannot endure but they can get away at 22+G when incoming an enemy missile. kızılsungur 21:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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


I think if the USAF makes a Unmaned jet fighter, the F-22 or the F-35 would be the ones to do it with. The F-22 is so mauverable that there are things that keep it from killing the pilot! if we took the pilot out and put in a robot, it would be a huge advantage over everyone. We still need maned fighters though. Coolguy0730 —Preceding comment was added at 23:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vectored Thrust?

Was thrust vectoring originally in the plans when the YF-22 was competing with the YF-23? Or was it an addition added later after it had won over the YF-23? Jigen III (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


I think that the YF-22 had thrust vectoring before it won over the YF-23, but I also think that the YF-23 had it too. I'm not sure as well. Coolguy0730

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

[edit] Pop Culture Film Appearence

The article states that the plane made its theatrical debut in The Transformers film. Wasn't there an F-22 action sequence in The Hulk (the scene where he grabs an attacking plane and the pilot ascends until the Hulk blacks out in the upper atmosphere)? I no longer own that movie, so it will take me some time to check. Onikage725 (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Read all the wording again and see the Popular Culture References section above. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I had missed that section. Still though, what constitutes major? It isn't like Starscream was a focal point of the TF movie. Maybe my memory is off, but as far as Raptor action goes I recall him shooting a missile at the ground forces in the city and having a brief skirmish with the human Raptor squadron. He takes off when injured, the F-22's pursue, and next time we see Starscream he's running away. Hardly comparable to Top Gun and the F-14. It just seems that the F-22's appearances thus far in films have been relatively brief sequences of the military running afoul of some super-character or another, a scuffle ensuing, and then the film moves on. Onikage725 (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)