Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor/Archive 2

message: while the official F-22 webpage says that the weights are "Not releasable," there are many very reasonable weight estimates by reliable sources.  would it be acceptable to add said estimates and note their source?  mnemonic 12:21, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)
The official web site of US Air Force says that empty weight of F-22 is 40,000-pound class (approximately 18,000 kilograms) and not 31,670 lb (14,365 kg) as claimed in wiki article.
* Key word there is 'class'.  Meaning it weighs 40,000 lb or less.  Similar thing with the Mach 2 class speed.  The weights calculations are shown using sourced data in the F-22A Raptor Specifications. -Fnlayson 00:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weights 

message: Actualy this has just been tested using microwaves. I made a box thing and was confirmed that the substance is in fact epoxy and graphite. I put down two radios in a box with sheet lead on the outside and sheet lead between them. That way they can,t communicate. Then I made a box that I had equiped with the tech. I then turned one radio to scan and transmitted and nothing came in on the other. If you see any flaws in this test please tell.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.214.23.189  (talk • contribs) 
The F-22A may make use of Active Cancellation stealth systems where Radar waves are returned slightly out of phase, thus cancelling them out.  69.248.224.18 01:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply 

message: I've heard that US wants to sell some F22s to Israel. Is there any sources for this? Should we include this in the article?
217.219.164.6 13:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the burden on Israeli defense spending before the current conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon, it seems unlikely that Israel would be in the market for such an expensive air superiority fighter as the F-22, even using the generous military aid normally made available to the country by the USA. Add in the recent unpleasantness between the two countries over Israel's tendency to misappropriate US technology, the chances seem awfully low. Askari Mark | Talk 04:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1677470/posts Free Republic] repeats a news story on the issue, which seems mostly speculation.  I have to agree with Mark; I doubt Israel could afford them, and they're almost certainly not a particularly high priority for the IDF given the air superiority Israel has over any conceivable enemy.  --Robert Merkel 16:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selling F22 to Israel 

message: Well guys... here's my (a little ironic, sorry, couldn't resist, because I'm an "old european") comment: "two fighter aircraft take of from their base, meet and fight each other" is no realistic scenario. Fighters never come without support of AWACS (radar planes), satellites, ships, and / or ground support.
Stealth design and coating is not like a Star-Trek cloaking device. There is weather radar around, which can even track small clouds (so it eventually can also track F22 exhaust, unless the F22 exhaust also is stealth exhaust - just kidding!), and passive radar systems, which can detect stealth aircraft by detecting the disorder in electromagnetical background radiation caused by cellular phone systems, radio, satellites (GPS, TV, communication), radar etc., which is caused by the fact that stealth planes refract/absorb radiation. Of cause this requires a coupled network of "passive radar" stations, but as the stations do not emit any radiation, you cannot spot them (just in case there are people around who'd like to say "then the F22 flies around and takes out all those passive radar stations which it's super-high-range missiles before without being spotted! Hah!").
There are satellites overseeing the planet which can spot heat dissipation in real time and photograph a newspaper in your front lawn... and it's not only the US which actually has systems like that.
So any technically capable nation in the world can very probably detect an F22 in it's own airspace unless you destroy the whole communication infrastructure of that nation and/or the whole planet first.
Once the F22 is detected, there are missiles which can track it optically and/or by it's heat signature, as an F22 neither is optically invisible nor flies without creating heat.
The soviets shot down a B2, the serbs shot down an F117A (with a russian missile), so I really don't think an F22 is invincible. It's both naive and supercilious to believe that.
You can compare any aircraft to any other if you define criteria and measures (like, for example, "which aircraft can crush more meters of reinforced concrete by crashing into it at top speed"). You can compare packages of aircraft/engines/radar/missiles etc. in defined situations.
But it doesn't lead anywhere, as 1) there always are upgrades available for anything, so a modified version of fighter plane X maybe superior to plane Y in situation Z, and 2), you may not be able to influence the scenario in which the fighter aircraft is needed if it happens to come up.
You may have recognized that the actual revision of the (probably initially assumed uncomparably superior by some) M1 Abrams is the M1A2 (upgraded twice), and the AH64 Apache already is built in it's fourth / fifth revision. Please answer the question: Why that?
The answer is: The other guys do not actually sleep or something, so if the F22 will ever become engaged in an actual battle against the air force of any competitor in aircraft design, I'd not bet too much on the F22's uncomparable superiority.
^ The soviets never shot down a B2. TwinTurboZ 04:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "trust vectoring" - that's, um, like, a stealth equivalent of a deception jammer, right?  (Sorry, couldn't resist.)  Philip Trueman 14:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  You may even compare apples and oranges 

message: I have and will delete on sight any uncited comparison between this plane and others, for example:
Basing on maneuverability, F-22 is close to Mig-35, which has slighly higher 1.19 thrust/(loaded) weight ratio and more agile 2D-vectoring engines. However, aside of maneuverability, F-22 is more stealthy, can take twice as much of arming than Mig-35 and has supersonic cruise mode, which is more economic and helps against old types of missiles (that only lead by the heat of afterburners and thus may have less success rate in tracking F-22).
T/W is not the only benchmark of maneuverability and does not present a complete picture. Concluding anything about maneuverability from a single number is a gross WP:OR violation. Similarly, "more stealthy, twice as much armament, etc" are all uncited original research and do not belong in an encyclopedia. If you'd like to compare these aircraft, go write an essay or get a job at RAND. --Mmx1 22:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting OR comparison 

message: should the fact that australia was going to be buying the f-22 be added
--Noshpit 00:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Australia has never been going to buy the F-22.  There are some people, notably Kim Beazley, who think we should seriously look at it  instead of the F-35, but the government remains solidly behind a JSF purchase at this stage (though decision time was kicked back from 2006 to 2008 recently). --Robert Merkel 05:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia procurment 

message: I am changing several F-22 specifications due to my calculations below.
The F-22 does not weight 40,000 lb empty it weights 31,670 lb. The 40K figure is an overestimate put out by the USAF on purpose to marginalize F-22 capabilities. The original Lockheed Martin goal was to have the YF-22 weight 30,000 lb, no they did not miss the mark by 10K.
Sources
http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Stu/muddin/F-22.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-specs.htm
http://www.airtoaircombat.com/detail.asp?id=9
* Also, NASA Langley's page lists an empty weight of  31,670 lb and a MTOW of 60 klb.  This matches the Global Security specs. -Fnlayson 03:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  F-22A Raptor Specifications  

message: Can anyone think of a way that we could utilize this image from this page? It's obviously a Lockheed image. I'd like to find a way to use it under  or . What does everyone think? It's certainly more appropriate than this image which is currently in use (but is better than nothing.) —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, upon reflection, since Boeing is an F-22 partner, the image we're using now isn't irrelevant, but I'd like to be able to use that Lockheed image as well. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 07:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found all the ATF images we can handle at this DoD site. All you have to do is type "ATF" in the search field. After a few pages are several concept images. I'll be working them in soon at this page, Advanced Tactical Fighter, and YF-23 Black Widow II. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 07:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I eliminated the ATF concept pictures because they should belong in the Advanced Tactical Fighter article, not here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.160.190 (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the deleted pics, as there have been no other objections in the discussions to this point. Please achieve a consensus to remove the pics before trying to delete them again. Thanks. - BillCJ 06:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe the concept pics are relevant to the article, as there is no dedicated YF-22 page. Yes, there is a gallery of concept pics on the ATF article, but that should not preclude their being here also. - BillCJ 06:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Lockheed ATF concept 

message: Somebody heared somerhing about it && —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.168.163.233 (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like someone confused the F-22 with the F-35. Considering how infrequently an F-22 is likely to use its gun, who'd be willing to fund the integration of a differrent gun for the Raptor? Askari Mark (Talk) 22:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  M61 Vulcan will be replaced by GAU-12 Equalizer ? 

message: The Stealth section is elliptical at best.  It features vague examples of what the F-22 isn't, followed by negative assertions about other stealth aircraft without reference or support. Bias is evident throughout - "plagued by deployment problems..." would be improved by "maintenance heavy".  There is no actual information about the stealth of the aircraft, or how the F-22 responds to issues raised about the B-2 or F-117.  The entire section is taken from an aviation fan-zine, and struggles from lack of any real meat in the source material. I say this section should be scrapped until actual non-classified content about the stealth of this aircraft is referenced.  Comparisons of the stealth capability and design approach to other stealth- and non-stealth aircraft would be welcome.  As the F-22 is a "low-observable" stealth fighter aircraft, I would think that this is a section of high importance, and the abysmal dearth of content here limits the quality of the whole article severely. -- Metaxis 23:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section could probably use some clean-up.  But with the sources for comparisons cited there's no justification for removing the whole section. -Fnlayson 18:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Metaxis' claims of "bias" are bunk. It links to a hard article with recent content from one of the most reputable aviation sources in existence. Some of the claims are rather interesting but are well sourced. We might need to add content, but to claim "bias" is not being truthful. To be fair, I do not know much about what the first paragraph is asserting, but those are not the most significant claims. Aviation Week & Space Technology is not a "fan-zine" and is read by aviation industry and financial professionals alike. If you think it's a fan-zine, then it is likely that you have no real exposure. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 07:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stealth section devoid of content and biased 

message: Does the F-22 have any video camera electronics in its underside? --24.249.108.133 16:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belly Camera? 

message: :In early 2006, after an exercise involving just eight F-22s in Nevada in Nov. 2005, Lieutenant Colonel Jim Hecker, commander of the 27th Fighter Squadron (FS) at Langley AFB, Virginia, commented "We killed 33 F-15Cs and didn't suffer a single loss. They didn't see us at all."[34]
:In June 2006 during Exercise Northern Edge (Alaska's largest joint military training exercise), the F-22A achieved a 144-to-zero kill-to-loss ratio against F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s simulating MiG-29 'Fulcrums', Su-30 'Flankers', and other current front line Russian aircraft, which outnumbered the F-22A 4 to 1 at times''
All this stuff about war game stats is kinda dumb considering kills in these games are solely acheivable by gaining radar locks. Of course you will get zero radar locks on a stealth plane, however theoretically they could still be killed by enemy fighters lucky shots.  I'm just saying it's just basically a pointless stat.  It might as well just say current radar systems equiped on US planes are unable to lock onto the F22. -Arch NME 10:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointless Stats 

message: Seing as the F-35 isn't in the same class of plane as the F-22, but is derived from it, I suggest moving the F-35 from Comparable Aircraft to Related development.
:To whoever (since you don't sign your posts!) thought of putting the F-22 and F-35 under "related development": Thanks! I should have thought of that my self! I guess I was too close to the tree to see the forest. Even worse, I do alot of editing in the "Related content" sections of aircraft articles, and that type of move is what I usually do! Ohe well, that's why Wikipedia is co-operative. Thanks again. - BillCJ 16:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I think the F-22 & F-35 are both related and comparable.  But related is fine. -Fnlayson 16:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I usually only list a particular type once. If it fits in Related, then that's where I put it. Not sure if this is in the page content guidelines or not, but that's how I handle it. - BillCJ 16:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  F-35 to Related Devlopment 

message: Have there been, or are their any publicly scheduled flight demonstrations of the F-22? I think the answer to the question would be relevant to the article. If my memory serves, it was a really big deal when the MiG-29 made its first western appearance in the Paris Airshow. Plus it'd be really cool to be, or have been at an f-22 demonstration. RMelon 14:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A simple google search on "F-22 Airshow" reveals plenty of results from the 2004 and 2005 airshow at the Nellis AFB to the 2006 New Castle County Airshow (U.S. not UK). This link states the first visit to a public airshow was at the Sun 'n Fun in Lakeland, Florida. --Deon Steyn 08:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airshows 

message: Hi,
I'd like to put forward my own website as an external link for the F-22 Raptor page. I won't add the link myself, as that is considered spamming. Please have a look, we feature active discussions and a ton of photos of the F-22 Raptor.
http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/index.php/topic,292.0.html
Cheers, Roger —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhino Roger (talk • contribs) 21:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External F-22 Link 

message: There are plagarized passages in this article taken from at least three sources.  I will be removing them once I have looked up the exact locations to support the fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klauth (talk • contribs) 
* Wait a minute.  Where and what sources?  If it is US Government material, that may not be copyrighted and can be copied. Also, some sites copy Wikipedia material (with or without a 'license'). -Fnlayson 02:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly.  Plagiarism works both ways.  I've personally had the experience of writing something for Wikipedia, and seen it used (unacknowledged) in commercially published work. --Robert Merkel 07:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagarism 

message: This section needs to be pared. The fact that the F-22 is being considered by other nations is fine to mention but look at the detail here especially in the passage on Australia. Comments? Bzuk 12:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. - BillCJ 14:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed sales

message: I replaced "Apple Macintosh" with "personal computer" since IEEE 1394 is common on many different computers; it's not unique to Macs. In fact, most computers with IEEE 1394 are IBM-compatible computers and not Apples. I see no reason to showcase one particular brand of computer when the technology is common on many different computers now. It's also misleading, since it leads the reader to believe that the only computers that have the technology are Macs. Whoever keeps reverting the article to read "Apple Macintosh" is simply being an advocate for Macs. TwinTurboZ 17:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Macintosh advocacy

message: I propose a clear rule for the chapter “Comparable aircraft” in order to avoid all the nationalis fervor like “F-22 is in a league of it's own” or frustrations like “Why my favorite plane (Typhoon/Rafale) is not included even if it rates almost the same and cost 5 times less”. The comparables planes should the ones that (1) are produced/developed in the same time and (2) have at least some characteristics that are relatively comparable. While some planes are without discussion superior in some scenarios better than the direct competition they may find in a realistic battlefield ether as opponents or allies. More they are regularly compared by governments for acquisitions and in this case the winner is not necessarily decided by quality but also price, availability, easy to maintain, political pressure, corruption.... More it is useless to send an expensive F22 to police the sky of Somalia, a Mig 21 will do the job. BdB134.157.93.124 14:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestions:
#Register! - you are more likely to be taken seriously if you take the time to register, which, among other things, makes sure you have one talk page for communications from other editors.
#As the "Comparable aircraft" field is on all WP:AIR project articles, they are better posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft page.
#You've forgotten the users who add their nation's proposed subsonic attack trainers. I have personally removed the IAMI Shafaq from this page on at least one occasion. - BillCJ 16:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rules for comparable aircrafts

message: The 3D view pic in the "specifications" section is that of the prototype, YF-22. Since that pic is png, captions can't be added. Shouldn't we get a 3D view of the F-22?
:Actually, captions can't be added because "thumb" is not in the image line, as 3-views aren't usually thumbnails. If you can find a legally-usable thumbnail of the F-22A, or create one, then by all means do so. But the YF-22 image is close enough to be included, and the image filepage does make clear which variant is used. It's not like we're trying to pass of a YF-23 or X-35 as the F-22! - BillCJ 00:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: YF-22 3D view

message: I remember that discovery channel showed a 2 hr episode about yf22 vs yf23.I dont know te link,can you help me.
manchurian candidate 08:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  discovery channel show about f22 vs f23 

message: What does that 73 number represent? The Number of combat ready F-22's delivered to the USAF or the number of AC in current squadron use? I ask because I know for a fact (and can prove) that Raptor's number 087 and 088 (90th FS Alaska) have been delivered to the AF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.54.112 (talk • contribs) 
* The 73 is from reference 1.  Which is the 2007 USAF Almanac.  Data is from Sept. 30, 2006.  A web link to this is provided. -Fnlayson 20:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is Wikipedia policy to only use sources attributable to verifiable sources. Until the USAF publically releases an updated number, we have to to use the last known published figures. Anything else is original research, and not useable. - BillCJ 01:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: * That's the latest source available.  If those pics aren't meant for public release, why are you posting them on a public site?  Nobody said you were wrong, btw.  -Fnlayson 02:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: * Concur. LanceBarber 03:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If one does a little 'homework' you can find the following quote from the official Langley AFB web site: "Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, is the second base scheduled to receive operational Raptors; however, each aircraft will come through Langley. For the near future both "AK" Elmendorf and "FF" 1st FW tails will be seen along the newly renovated Langley flightline. "  Find it, mod the F-22 article, and give the formal ref.   Regards, LanceBarber 03:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active Status 

message: The article says "its climb rate is faster than the F-15 Eagle due to advances in engine technology, despite the F-15's thrust-to-weight ratio of about 1.2:1, with the F-22 having a ratio closer to 1:1"
This doesn't sound right. If it's able to climb faster, that means that it either has a better thrust/weight ratio or the aircraft is just more aerodynamic. The fact that the max engine thrust is classified but we know that it climbs faster than the F-15 suggests that it may have more thrust than commonly believed, making the actual thrust/weight ratio better than the F-15's.TwinTurboZ 05:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climb performance 

message: Does the Raptor use fibre optics for its bus? Found no mention of this in the text.Bumper12 01:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fibre optics? 

message: This article deperately needs editing by someone who isn't a 17 year fanboy and who has a basic grasp of physics - stealth does not mean "no detection by radar" but "reduced detection range, based on the fourth root of the radar signature". There's no discussion of the criticism of the plane by Ricconi and Sprey (eg poor fuel factor, massive visual signature) or of the criticism of the aircraft for not having a BVR weapon system equivalent to the Meteor. A key claim - that missile bays are only open for a second while launching an air to air missile - is made without a source or comprehension of its significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.90.70 (talk • contribs) 
* The article never states Stealth means "no detection by radar".  Where do you get that? -Fnlayson 20:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expert attention

message: BillCJ, whether you do or don't like 2003's Hulk, the F-22 is the main focus of multiple action scenes in that movie - one which happens to be a notable Hollywood film - and as such, unless there was a film in which it appeared earlier, Hulk is the F-22's debut in a Hollywood film. How that is "cruft" is beyond me.
:Serious editors don't add or remove items because of whether or not we like the film. Please read the hidden sections in the text (which I've just updated), and read the links to the relevant sections in the WP:AIR and WP:MILHIST project page content guidelines. This section is not a list of every apperance, only the especially notable ones. And sources can be required to prove that notablility if an appearance is in question. Which this one is. - BillCJ 00:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  With the latest hubbub about the two items in this section, are these items to be restored? FWIW Bzuk 02:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I think so.  It'd be good to add a reference to the books line. -Fnlayson 03:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'd rather they be left out. But, as I understand the current policies of Wikipedia, pop-culture references are not forbidden, though I am participating in efforts to get them banned. In the menatime, the consensus here was to include them, so that ought to be upheld. However, the admin who removed them is still holding to the view that they are not allowed under current policy. Given this, he'll probably just remove them again. But you're welcome to try to re-add it; I won't be interfering either way. - BillCJ 03:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "First prominent Hollywood debut." This is simply inaccurate and subjective. I had the same thought as the OP when I read this entry on the main page. IMHO, it should at least mention The Hulk, followed by Transformers. Seems like a silly spat to me. 216.160.102.166 18:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain to me why there is even a popular culture section at all. 64.142.65.164 01:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular Culture

message: BillCJ, whether you do or don't like 2003's Hulk, the F-22 is the main focus of multiple action scenes in that movie - one which happens to be a notable Hollywood film - and as such, unless there was a film in which it appeared earlier, Hulk is the F-22's debut in a Hollywood film. How that is "cruft" is beyond me.
:Serious editors don't add or remove items because of whether or not we like the film. Please read the hidden sections in the text (which I've just updated), and read the links to the relevant sections in the WP:AIR and WP:MILHIST project page content guidelines. This section is not a list of every apperance, only the especially notable ones. And sources can be required to prove that notablility if an appearance is in question. Which this one is. - BillCJ 00:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  With the latest hubbub about the two items in this section, are these items to be restored? FWIW Bzuk 02:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I think so.  It'd be good to add a reference to the books line. -Fnlayson 03:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'd rather they be left out. But, as I understand the current policies of Wikipedia, pop-culture references are not forbidden, though I am participating in efforts to get them banned. In the menatime, the consensus here was to include them, so that ought to be upheld. However, the admin who removed them is still holding to the view that they are not allowed under current policy. Given this, he'll probably just remove them again. But you're welcome to try to re-add it; I won't be interfering either way. - BillCJ 03:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The Google test doesn't work (WP:GOOG). Forgive me, but it seems you didn't actually read the links you provided. The former makes reference to both Tom Clancy and the F-22, but not at the same time. The latter link is a forum post, and doesn't seem to mention either author or their books. --Eyrian 20:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom Clancy has also featured the F-22 in his 2004 Fighter Wing which in the Book Review describes: "including cutting-edge information on the F-22 and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter." FWIW Bzuk 00:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure we're reading the same review? I find no mention of Clancy, Fighter Wing, or any fiction at all in the review you've linked. --Eyrian 00:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a site with a mention of Tom Clancy's books: Amazon reviews. FWIW Bzuk 00:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazon is a store site and, as such, can't be used as a reference. --  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And another: Air Combat where Fighter Wing is referenced. FWIW Bzuk 11:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, statements restored and references cited. FWIW Bzuk 18:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular Culture continued

message: I updated the unit cost in the Infobox.  This is from 
FY 2008/2009 Budget Estimates, which lists $157.7 million on page 1-13 (pg. 51 in file).  See if I missed something.  I expected the numbers to be closer to last year's $120M.  -Fnlayson 17:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says 137 on that page, not 157. And also, that is not the "True Unit Cost", at least "true" as in comparable to other aircraft. You should add the Airframe, engine, and avionics costs per aircraft to get a "unit cost" that is comparable to what other aircraft are. Other aircraft's unit costs are calculated in this way. This comes out to $133 million as seen in that budget report. This is what was done for the previous $120million cost as well. Note, the increase in cost is mainly due to the lowering of the amount of aircraft being produced per year. 24 F-22s were being built per year before, but only 20 per year are being built from now on, so this rises total unit cost.129.82.86.201 09:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Good, thanks.  I was using the unit cost from the Total column.  But that included projected costs for future years. -Fnlayson 17:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated unit cost 

message: Why did this aircraft take 20 years to enter operational service?  That's kind of bizarre for any aircraft type.  The basic design dates to the late 1980s.  I wonder if there are technology obsolecence issues that might come into play.   -Rolypolyman 02:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Exceptionally long testing period

message: The F-22 Jet is featured on the Command & Conquer Generals PC game as the American Raptor Jet, the main air unit for the American side. Should this be added to the popular culture section? Matty B 1000 16:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think so; it's not really notable. Parsecboy 16:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Command & Conquer Generals 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: * 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  A paragraph on air shows [tour] 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: * I meant mainly a paragraph on the air show tour with mention of notable shows. -Fnlayson 17:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air Show - Toronto Picture 

message: 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)
thread_title: Data link

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: * 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)
replies: text:  Very well, this should probably be clarified in the infobox page...CyrilleDunant 14:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unit cost 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Bomb test flameout nearly crashes F-22--90.186.140.193 07:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? I didn't think this article was about operator error. Parsecboy 12:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Bomb test flameout nearly crashes F-22