Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

Mach numbers

The article says the top speed is mach 2.24, which it claims is 1500mph. Mach 2.24 is 1726mph. 1500mph is mach 1.95. 173.61.188.71 (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The Mach number is related to speed and altitude. The speed of sound decreases with altitude. See also WP:MACH-NUMBER. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

F-22 is "a critical component of the USAF's tactical airpower."

After a protracted development and initial operational difficulties, the F-22 became a critical component of the USAF's tactical airpower. This is cited to a book published in 1998 and another published in 1999, both well before the plane entered service. What is the basis for this statement? Schierbecker (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The USAF's page for the F-22 states, "[the] Raptor performs both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions allowing full realization of operational concepts vital to the 21st century Air Force." However, this is a primary source, but the GAO also described the F-22 as "critical" in a 2018 report on better optimizing the F-22 force structure.

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-190

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104506/f-22-raptor/ Steve7c8 (talk) 17:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the fact sheet reference. Its primary purpose is recruiting. It is also outdated. The current fact sheet is nearly identical to the version posted in 2005. The clue is in the next sentence: "The F-22 cannot be matched by any known or projected fighter aircraft." Yet, the Air Force is retiring it before the F-15EX, F-16 and potentially the A-10? Headlines like "Keeping the F-22 Credible Through 2030 Will Cost At Least $9 Billion, USAF Leaders Say" don't inspire confidence in me that the Air Force thinks the F-22 is still world-beating. "Critical" is meaningless puffery. I would propose that any superlatives be in the body, not the lede, and should be run as attributed quotes. I would propose saying something about the F-22's replacement by NGAD in the lede. Schierbecker (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

"Critical" isn't puffery as this is how the USAF considers the F-22 for its air superiority mission until NGAD replaces it, currently slated to start in the 2030s. I don't think that word is a superlative. The article regarding the future "4+1" fighter force describes it consisting of F-22 followed by NGAD, F-35, F-16 followed by MR-X, F-15E followed by F-15EX, and A-10, although the A-10 is increasingly looking like it won't make it to the future force by 2028, hence just "4". USAF separated these groups by role, and the F-22 fleet will transition to NGAD when it enters operational service in the 2030s as currently planned. Note that USAF states that the F-22 will continue to be a cornerstone of its fleet until NGAD is operational. The planned retirement of the F-22 by the 2030s is largely driven by economies of scale; USAF considers the Raptor the preeminent air superiority fighter (far more capable than the F-16 and F-15EX, whose roles are affordable mass in more permissive environments) until NGAD, and its retirement is driven by economics more than capability due to small fleet size. At one point I did write a statement about NGAD replacing the F-22 in the lede, but given that NGAD schedule has remained somewhat murky until recently, I decided to remove it a few months later. Steve7c8 (talk) 06:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

No YF-22 image?

Surely this page can accommodate one photo of the YF-22 for comparison? It might also be prudent to add a picture of the YF-23. Schierbecker (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Why? They already have photos in their respective articles, YF-22 and YF-23. Why would we need them in this article? Zaereth (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

More detailed description of NATF in the YF-22 article

I added a more detailed description of the Lockheed team's NATF design in the YF-22 article and linked it appropriately. The reason is that I try to keep most of the F-22 development information in this article on post Dem/Val work, including FSD/EMD, production, and modernization, while the YF-22 article would cover the period ATF RFI to Dem/Val. Given that the Navy began backing out of NATF even before the ATF winner for FSD/EMD was selected, the design never progressed beyond Dem/Val, which is why I feel that it's more appropriate to have it the other article. Steve7c8 (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Uhhh... ok? No offense intended, but this reminds me of that quote from Robin Williams in Good Morning Vietnam, "Excuse me, sir. Seeing as how the V.P. is such a V.I.P., shouldn't we keep the P.C. on the Q.T.? 'Cause if it leaks to the V.C. he could end up M.I.A., and then we'd all be put out in K.P."

So the question I have is, how does that translate into English? Zaereth (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Explaining why I think the description of the naval variant should be in the YF-22 rather than F-22 article, because almost no development work on that variant happened after the downselect. Some of its design cues were taken for A-X and A/F-X but those are different aircraft and programs. Steve7c8 (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Why are we referring to it as the Lockheed/Boeing F-22 Raptor?

I don't want to start an edit war, but Lockheed/Boeing F-22 Raptor seems to plainly violate WP:UCRN, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:COMMONTERM.

The F-22 does not appear on Boeing Defense's website as a aircraft they manufacture, the actual title of the article does not include Boeing, the Air Force museum refers to it as the Lockheed Martin F-22 (https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/196040/lockheed-martin-f-22a-raptor/).

There are other aircraft that have contract partners in the program, most importantly the F-35, but we don't refer to the F-35 as the Lockheed Martin / Northrop Grumman / BAE Systems F-35 Lightning II.

Similarly, the F-16 has been manufactured by Lockheed since 1995, but we don't refer to it as the Lockheed Martin F-16, but, instead, the original designer General Dynamics. 2600:4040:297C:8F00:3DF5:9183:2248:E353 (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The reason is that unlike the F-35, where Lockheed is the prime contractor with Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems being subcontractors, the F-22 was designed as a team with three roughly equal partners, originally Lockheed California (CALAC), General Dynamics Fort Worth (GDFW), and Boeing Seattle, and the work was split evenly between the three, not just the airframe but the entire system including avionics, training systems, etc. See the YF-22 article for the background of the partnership. Unlike other aircraft programs with partners, the Lockheed F-22 design involved GDFW and Boeing Seattle at the fundamental system level, including the overall shape and the avionics design. Lockheed only got majority of the program when they absorbed GDFW in 1993 (the design was also transferred from Lockheed California to Lockheed Georgia for EMD and production). It's for similar reasons that the YF-23 is listed as a Northrop/McDonnell Douglas aircraft. Given the involvement Boeing Seattle had in both the design and production of the F-22 since the program founding, I think it's suitable in this case to list them in the opening sentence. Steve7c8 (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve. It is possible that Boeing is no longer a principal partner in the program, which has been out of production for years, and became a mere sub-contractor at some point in the program. We'll have to research that. BilCat (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The relationships and workshare has definitely shifted now that the aircraft is no longer in production and the program is in the sustainment phase as well as ongoing modernization. That said, the opening sentence should reflect the prime contractors and principal partners during the time of design and production, IMO. Other examples include the General Dynamics/Grumman EF-111 Raven, Bell/Boeing V-22 Osprey, and the stillborn General Dynamics/McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger II (flying Dorito). Steve7c8 (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree. BilCat (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. WP:COMMONNAME refers to article titles, but the first sentence of the article usually gives a subject's full name, which may differ from the title. (For example: Buck Dharma or Kim Kardashian). Either way, it seems like a silly thing to edit war over. Zaereth (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Designation and testing section

I've noticed that the "Designation and test" section of this article is under "Operational history", which appears to be an exception as most aircraft articles have that under "Development". Should the section be moved? As a side note, this article is becoming quite along, and admittedly I may be guilty of a lot of content addition over the years, despite my earlier work that trimmed it down substantially. Steve7c8 (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)