Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor/Archive 1

message: A recent aviationnow article places the cost at about $91 million. I think there needs to be some note in this wiki article of the nuances of military (particularly air force) equipment procurement costs mnemonic 12:33, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)
:: The figure in that article does not account for R&D costs, which have already been paid for and is not a small amount. -jph 14:30, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)
::: ...which emphasizes my point regarding USAF cost quotes. who's up for a dedicated USAF aircraft procurement cost article?  i think it's a very complex issue deserving of a thorough explanation. mnemonic 01:04, 2004 Jul 18 (UTC)
This sentence in the "Procurement" section seems to be missing a subject: "In 2005, for the fiscal year 2006, under further DoD cost cutting measures, is forecasting the number of aircraft procured at 180 saving an additional $15 billion but raising the per unit cost." I would have fixed it up if I knew what it was supposed to mean. Pete 03:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  F-22 cost 

message: The stealth system on the F/A-22 is pretty simple. What it does it absorb radio waves and act as an antenna to a radio. It is covered with a substance (most likely graphite and epxoy) that absorb them. Those that are not absorbed are put into random directions by saw like edges that are very small. It acts as a radio antenna by catching radio waves and altering there direction. This also explains the w shape of the B-2 Spirit bomber. Another thing it does is that its two rudders are tilted so that when radio waves hit them the ones that arent absorbed are sent to the other wing just like a satellite focuser. The F/A-22 also has its bottum wings bent ever so slightly so it can do this and keep aerodynamics. It also probably has about 4-8 Radio jammers on its bottum to keep people that see it from reporting it... or so it can kill them before they do
But dont think the F/A-22 is invincible because its far from. Ive already discovered and developed a radar system that can show an F/A-22, a F-117, and a B-2 bomber at there full size. it works with a frequency that can not be altered by an antenna actualy this frequency is in the catogory of microwaves and burned a hole in my wall when i first tested it. Plus i developed a pistol that would shut down any plane with an E.M.P and then magnetize a steel projectile that is flung at the craft, it is magnetized to a certain degree where it will "seek" a fighters engine and go down the shaft. When i tested this I made a mini without a projectile and it shut down my computer for about a week and erased all my info, luckily i had a paper copy of the stuff. Another side effect of the E.M.P is that it infected my computer with a virus, which was not fun when it finally turned back on.
I've figured out a lot more than this but if I told the FBI and the Air Force would be pretty mad. So dont think ive told you everything and go do something like try to shoot an F/A-22 down cause I wouldnt give that info out on the internet unless I was paid to.
Daniel Glisson
:Your observations are interesting, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish your original research.  See Wikipedia:No original research.  Good luck with your experimentation.--Robert Merkel 00:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What I don't get is how an EM pulse would put a virus on a computer. Surely that's like getting cancer from a gunshot wound? I think someone might be telling porkie pies.
i like that "cancer from a gunshot wound" comment...that's pretty good. but yeah, dan apparently has no idea what he's talking about. 4-8 radio jammers? that essentially negates the whole stealth design. as for the emp, it's not a directional weapon. and how do you magnetize a piece of metal to "seek" a certain piece of an aircraft? Parsecboy 20:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Shouldn't this article mention the debate that was/is raging over the usefullness of the F-22 in contemporary times?The whole relic of the cold war thing?--Technosphere83 14:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if you can find some appropriate sources to quote.  --Robert Merkel 22:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm,I'll look when I have the time,it just that it was a pretty hot topic a while ago,but I guess this happens everytime a new fighter comes along.--Technosphere83 22:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: F-22 critisism

message: I removed the section entitled Performance Notes from Simulator Testing in X-Plane 8.21, which had the following content:
:* Using X-Plane 8.21 and Barry's F-22 Aircraft file at http://xplanefreeware.net/barry/index%20F22.html, these things were derived:
:* The F-22 can exceed Mach 2.2 with afterburner.  Mach 1.72 is the accurate with supercruise at 40,000-50,000 feet, but it is more Mach 1.5 at low altitude.
:* The engines definitally are at their most efficient between Mach 1.4 and 1.6 at high altitude.
:* 65,000-70,000 feet can be sustained if ascending carefully and never going below Mach 1.2.  Max altitude subsonic is more 60,000 feet.  I've climbed to over 90,000 feet, but it obviously cannot sustain that altitude.
:* It flies from Miami, FL to Lima, Peru with 25,000 pounds of fuel and no in-flight refueling.  It was done at high altitude (>60,000 feet) at Mach 1.5-1.65 without afterburner.
:* The F-22 can fly, stay on course with a lot of effort, but not take off or land, in X-Plane's worst possible weather conditions - 200 knots, level 9 turbulence, 50 knot and 180 degree wind sheer.
:* Some of this stuff may still be classified, but it was analytically reverse engineered with X-Plane by Laminar Research, which is public and affordable by individuals, but is used as the simulation software in Motus full motion simulators certified to train commercial pilots!  Look in in the Total Flight Immersion Section for the references to Laminar Research.
Personally, I think your experiments sound like reasonable guesswork, but it's definitely original research which is banned by our policy at Wikipedia:no original research.  Sorry.  Research has to be published elsewhere before including it.  In any case, Barry doesn't explain how he came up with his aircraft model; without that information it's not all that useful.  How the hell does he know that the engines actually have the capabilities he's ascribed to them, for instance?  --Robert Merkel 02:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. :)  E Pluribus Anthony 08:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To me it sounds like he took a flightsim, added the airplane and tested it, but without knowing anything as to how the creator of the plane had decided on the aerodynamics of the plane. For all we know, the addon might be pure guesswork... Bjelleklang 14:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One of X-Plane's claims to fame (as opposed to, say, Microsoft Flight Simulator) is that the flight dynamics of its aircraft are based on the actual properties of the airframe (aerodynamics, etc).  Sort of a "virtual wind tunnel."  So with X-Plane, you put the design in the sim and the sim tells you how it should fly, whereas in MSFS or others, you put the plane in the sim and tell the sim how it should fly.  Nevertheless, this is original research and thus not appropriate. -RedMageCWD 00:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section  

message: Different Sources show different preformacne.
*Book A = Mach 2.2
*Book B = Mach 1.8
*Source A = Mach 1.8
*Source B = Mach 2.5
*Source C = Mach 2.7
Why is that? Which source is correct? I say that i think the manafacturer preformance is correct. Irfanfaiz 13:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's unlikely that the F-22's is slower than the F-15 (mach 2.54).  The supercruise engines and large wing surfaces suggest an improvement in speed.  I say "suggest" because our sources appear to be classified. 24.184.67.122 21:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance 

message: The correct speed is mach 2.2. i know this because i was inside lockheed martin while they where making them. I asked the designer how fast they could go and he said. " The F-22 has an airspeed capability of mach 2.2"
:If you were inside Lockhead Martin while they were developing it then you would know that you just gave out clasified information and could be charged for giving out national secrets that would put you in jail for a very long time. Drew1369 15:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but we can't use that directly in the article, or anything you learned from such an excursion.  It's annoying because there's not that much information about the new generation fighters that isn't hearsay or rumor, but we really need to stick to verifiable sources.  If you published an article in Jane's saying so, then we could quote that... --Robert Merkel 02:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed 

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

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

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

message: I got another 5 websites
Site A: Mach 2.0
Site B: Mach 2.5
Site C: Mach 1.8
Site D: Mach 2.4
Site E: Mach 2.2
My thought: Mach 2.4 seems to be reasonable. Weight : Thrust ratio is high.
:They couldn't use a variable intake for stealth reasons, because of that the F-22 cannot reach it's speed potential.
:Try and assess the credibility of the people making the guess, not do your own independent analysis of the guess itself.  --Robert Merkel 22:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just do it the easy way, avoid speculation and cite the USAF's fact file, which claims mach 1,5+ with no afterburner, and "mach 2 class in general" ? Bjelleklang  -  talk 23:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the USAF is being incredibly vague.  --Robert Merkel 06:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But everyone else is just guessing. TomTheHand 13:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially when you include the fact that many aspects of the aircraft and it's capabilities are still classified! I think it should remain as it is today, citing USAF and Lockheed. Bjelleklang  -  talk 14:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mach 1.8, 2.0, 2.2 or 2.4 are the likely maximum speeds. And "mach 2 class" means that the aircraft can go faster than mach 2.0. And the proposed speed (when it was YF-22) was Mach 2.7. Reasonable right? Good engine and aerodynamics means that the aircraft can accelerate pass it's limits. Mach 2.4 is a good maximum speed. Irfanfaiz 05:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have an external link here from global security, citing the speed of the Raptor to be Mach 1.8  (supercruise: Mach 1.5) I will look for more external links when I have time and I'm logged on. --212.85.15.67 13:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of that may be from verifiable sources, but it's still just a guess.  The USAF has not released the exact specs of the plane.  They are classified.  I would be alright with a note clarifying that "some independent analysts" claim a maximum speed of between Mach 1.8 and 2.4. TomTheHand 14:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing the USAF and Lockheed would be ok with me, additional sources should be represented as per TomTheHand's suggestion; USAF and Lockheed are just about the only sources that actually can make the max speed official, and they have yet to do so, except for a very vague indication. Bjelleklang  -  talk 14:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, it's possible, but "I read somewhere" isn't something we can cite. --Robert Merkel 04:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The speed question is of course of the most real interest to the child witin us, and looking over the conversations here and the stats reported some of you have pretty dominant inner children... I've just had a look at the recruitment focused fact sheet section within the "cool stuff" part of the UASF's website (http://www.airforce.com/coolstuff/hangar.php) and they give the following stats for performance: Speed- Mach 1.58 (1.7 with afterburners). I think that is the best source for info of this type, rather than quotes from speculative sources, test pilots, designers, games, hearsay etc. It is a definitive, simple number from one of THE most official sources on the subject. With that in mind, I'll make the change. feel free to change it back, but remember this comes straight from a proper source this time that uses an actual number and not just a "class" like the other UASF fact sheet, (the fact that the numbers are less also makes the whole thing a bit more credible). The G limit is also down to "+7.9". OzoneO 13:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed 

message: though I know little of the subject, I deleted:
 or perhaps inflight refuelling
because, with inflight refuelling the concept of range is meaningless, I think. — Xiutwel (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  range 

message: Infoboxes are a pain, they take up the whole screen on lower resolution and the information is uninformative in places. All these specs are in their own section, and the page layout does not conform with WP:Air. The picture can (and should) be kept. Anyone object to me removing it?--The1exile 13:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Infobox removed, picture kept. --The1exile 12:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes; we don't use them. Does anyone object to me removing it? 

message: Unfortunately, this issue seems to have escalated rather nastily during the night, but I'll do my best to calm it down, and take another try at explaining what's occurred in this article.  (This comment is mainly directed at Stang281, but is also meant for other posters above.)
Firstly, I would like to apologise on behalf of myself, Mmx1, and Emt147 for being too rude to you.  You obviously meant no harm by adding the link, and didn't deserve what was said to you.  Before being chastised, you should have been thanked for your interest.
However, I would like to take some time and offer explanations for the actions taken by Deniss, Mmx1, and the comments posted above.  Because Wikipedia is often targeted by linkspam, where people attempt to advertise their personal webpages or boost their Google rank by adding links to Wikipedia, many Wikipedians tend to view additions such as yours with suspicion.  I'm not saying they're right in doing so, nor am I labelling your contributions as linkspam; I'm just explaining how some editors behave.
Also, articles like this one tend to get flooded with trivia, such as every video game it's ever appeared in (see above).  Likewise, it sometimes seems that anyone who has a personal webpage devoted to the F-22 wants a link to their webpage.  Consequently, some Wikipedians—Mmx1 is an especially notable member of this group—tend to view such additions sceptically.  Again, I'm not passing judgement, only describing behaviour.
I would also like to take time to note, as I implied above, that Administrators have no authority over content disputes.  We can only exercise our powers to deal with serious breaches of policy or protocol.  Please note, however, that revert warring (reverting an article three times in 24 hours) is punishable by a 24 hour block.  Because I am personally involved in this dispute, I will not be taking action against anyone who engages in revert warring, but I will take steps to ensure that such behaviour is dealt with.
Now, as for the matter of the link you added.  I have reviewed your webpage, and unfortunately all of the images I reviewed had no source or copyright information.  Images can never be distributed as 'Fair Use' unless their source and copyright status is adequately described.  Because there is no source information provided, we do not know whether the images are Public Domain (taken by the Air Force) or copyrighted (taken by Lockheed, or possibly by photojournalists).  Because of this uncertainty, we should not include the link to your album.  This would be tantamount to illegally uploading copyrighted images onto Wikipedia itself; we have a responsibility to limit our links to pages that are not potential copyvios, unless we have no other options.
You cite our legal disclaimer as evidence to the contrary.  However, the disclaimer has no standing as content policy.  Rather, as I noted above, it is designed to reduce Wikimedia's chances of getting sued—nothing more.  The fact that we claim to be free of legal responsibility does not excuse us from being choosy about our external links.
Any of your images that are in the Public Domain can be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons.  Please follow these very important rules, however:
#Images must be in the Public Domain, or available under a free licence such as the GFDL or CC-by-SA.  Images in the Commons may not be Fair Use images, or images used with permission if said permission does not include third-party use.
#You must include a hyperlink to the location you got the image from, preferrably one that allows navigation throughout other parts of the site rather than just to the image page.
#You must include a hyperlink to prove the copyright status of the image.
Ingoolemo talk 19:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha. Apologies to Stang as well for my abrasive language. I tend to be bold and quite loose with my use of sarcasm. Incidentally, I am in general a deletionist (just peek at my edit history), so it's by no means personal. --Mmx1 19:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Apologies if I was harsh. You do need to learn about copyright laws to clear up some of the misconceptions you have. Even government/military images are not public domain by default -- there are exceptions and you need to read the copyright notices. Like others said, many of the "military" images are actually PR from the manufacturer and as such very much copyrighted. - Emt147 Burninate! 19:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Where did the 80,000 lb MTOW come from? Green's Great Book of Fighters (2001) gives a 55,000 lb MTOW. The 2.7-fold increase from empty weight to MTWO is better than what the C-5 Galaxy can muster. I don't even think you can find space for 50,000 lb of fuel and weapons (an equivalent of a fully loaded F-4 Phantom!) inside a single-seat multirole fighter. - Emt147 Burninate! 01:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the prodigious thrust output of the engines, it's not that unlikely; but I would like to see a cite and doubt you'd be actually be able to load it with 50k of fuel and ordnance. --Mmx1 02:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MTOW 

message: I've removed the entire pop culture section -- it's just a magnet for fanboyism and paragraph-long recitations of Tom Clancy books. If semi-accurate sims are worth mentioning (Digital Integration's F-22 and F-22 Total Air War), a "Simulations" section should be made. - Emt147 Burninate! 01:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bravo! --Robert Merkel 01:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop culture 

message: I'm not sure if you guys are looking at this talk page, but I noticed you guys are edit warring over the following passage:
:Maneuverability in real-world combat is hotly debated, with some experts claiming it is inferior to the Typhoon. It is not known whether USAF claims about Raptor's superior maneuverability are accurate; many argue that, in any case, today’s beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles make maneuverability less important.
I've noticed no attempts at discussion from either side.  On T800m101's part, I assume that that may be because you are new to Wikipedia (if so, welcome).  On the other hand, Mmx1 has accused T800m101 of vandalism off the bat, which I consider highly inappropriate.  Mmx1, I encourage you to reread Wikipedia:Vandalism.  Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.  Do you honestly think that T800m101 is deliberately trying to make the article worse, or do you think it's more likely that he disagrees with the content of the paragraph?  If he is removing it because he disagrees, then you have no right to accuse him of vandalism.  He may just not know the proper procedure of discussing changes.  Please do not bite the newcomers.
Now, on to the content in question.  Mmx1, do you have a reliable source for that information?  Even if you have a source, I seriously doubt it could be reliable information; I'm certain that the details of the F-22's maneuverability are highly classified and anyone making such claims is engaging in a lot of speculation and guesswork. TomTheHand 21:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My accusations are based on his behavior at 4th generation jet fighter, where the user has blanked an entire section repeatedly - blanking qualifies as vandalism. If you look at the history, an IP(User:68.39.163.15 was removing the content in a similar fashion shortly before, and the deletion was repeated several times before I made any accusations of vandalism. The deletions here have not been as severe, and I have never accused them of being vandalism. However, in concert with his other deletions (which are his only contributions to wiki), it seemed appropriate that such deletions were in bad faith and should be reverted. --Mmx1 21:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you're saying in reference to 4th generation jet fighter and I apologize for jumping the gun.  I still would call it a content dispute rather than vandalism, though a content dispute without communication is probably just as bad.  The content he's removing from 4th gen fighter is sourced, so I can't agree with its removal and without communication from T800m101 I can't really imagine his reasons.  I've left a message on his talk page asking him to talk a bit, but since he hasn't responded to anything before I don't know how hopeful to be. TomTheHand 02:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current edit war 

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

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