Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor/Archive 8

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

"The fighter's combination of stealth, aerodynamic performance, and mission systems enable unprecedented air combat capabilities and set the benchmark for its generation."

That's just embarrassing. "the benchmark"? Why are you talking to me as though you're an advertising brochure? I don't know what your "benchmarks are." CrickedBack (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

There are two cited sources for that sentence. Did you follow up on them? As for benchmarks, consider how other 5th generation fighters are generally described in terms of their capabilities: mostly in comparison to the F-22. That isn't even necessarily a result of the F-22 being the best thing ever, rather, it's because it was the first 5th generation fighter aircraft. The F-35 gets compared to the F-22, for example, even though the F-22 surpasses it in a number of areas (and the F-35 surpasses the F-22 in some areas). The Su-57 is compared with the F-22, the J-20 is compared with the F-22, etc. Sometimes in those comparisons, the F-22 comes out on top, and sometimes it does not. Setting the benchmark often means little more than "being first," and so setting the standard. It doesn't mean it has the highest standard. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The F-22 was the the first operational fighter of its generation (5th). So it should be the benchmark. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be a simple matter of misunderstanding the meaning of a word. "Benchmark" is often a word used in promotional campaigns, but it actually has a technical meaning. It was originally a point of reference that surveyors would use to measure altitude, like a church steeple whose altitude is already known. The modern definition is: "Something whose quality or quantity is known and which can therefore be used as a standard or reference point with which other things can be compared or measured." It's not an absolute scale but a purely relative one. Every new thing sets the benchmark until the next new thing comes along and leaves it in the dust. Zaereth (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree that because it is the first 5th generation fighter, it is in fact the "benchmark" TomaHawk61 (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I am astonished such promotional language is in the lede. I am skeptical that the source supports that text added in 2014. Schierbecker (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The word "benchmark" was inserted rather recently too. Would it not be more objective and improve clarity if we simply said it was the first fifth gen fighter? Schierbecker (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"Fighter generations" is a marketing term, so that would just be exchanging one form of shilling for another one. BilCat (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"Fighter Generations is a technical reflection of the capabilities of the aircraft. Fifth Gen aircraft are substantially different in design architecture and capabilities. [1] DeknMike (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Saying it set the "benchmark" is not promotional, it's factual. No other fighter jet at the time of its release, or arguably now, has approached its level of sophistication.Belregard (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if we can really call anything marketing in this case, at least in the literal sense of the term, when they refuse to sell them to anyone. I guess one could make a case for boasting or maybe even a touch of propaganda, since a lot of the military involves sword rattling to make others think twice about messing with you. But sword rattling does little good if it's all just smoke and mirrors, and if anything the military has a history of downplaying its true capabilities. But any fighter that can get up to 58,000 feet --and still pull its nose up steeply enough to put a missile on something a good mile above it-- has definitely set a benchmark in the literal sense of the term. I agree that "unprecedented" was over the top, but I don't think "benchmark" is just a filler adjective (puffery) in this case. That said, it is kind of stating the obvious, and it is only a temporary thing, so it's not really written with that historical or "timeless" perspective in mind. Zaereth (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Going to need a source regardless. Schierbecker (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Finding sources is not a problem. For example, this source from Air and Space Magazine. There are plenty of sources that use the word benchmark when describing the F-22. Have you read the already-cited sources to make sure that they don't say it? Perhaps the better argument against is not one of mere policy but of what separates encyclopedic writing from other forms of expository writing?

I still think there is some misunderstanding about what the word means. The military is constantly benchmarking funds for one project or another. The latest Intel chip was the benchmark of its time until the next generation of computer chip came out. Under the definition of the word, it's plainly obvious that every new technology sets the benchmark for its time, however long or short that may be. It's easy to find sources for that too, such as this from the Air University, here: "The United States raised the stakes and established a benchmark in deception when it fielded the F-117, but even that aircraft is not invincible or invisible to radar.... Instead, the lesson learned is the inevitable downfall of technology in combat. The technological benchmark in warfare consistently resets, and there has yet to be a technology that cannot be countered."

The point is, however true it is for the moment, or even maybe the next decade or two, an encyclopedia should be written as if what we write today will still be relevant 100 years from now and not read as if it's dated. It's also not necessary and, to the contrary, more often than not comes off as condescending to point out the obvious. Finding sources is easy, but writing is hard work, and I think we could probably do a little more to make the writing seem less dated. Zaereth (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a better source? That one just makes a prediction, circa 1998, that the F-22 will be the one to beat. Schierbecker (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the phrase "set the benchmark for its generation". Note that I specifically caveated with "for its generation", i.e. 5th generation fighter. The F-22 is widely accepted as the first 5th generation fighter, and 5th generation fighter programs from many other countries have used the F-22 as a point of comparison. Yes, as technology and tactics march on, the F-22 will no longer be benchmark, but the NGAD, or whatever comes after it. But again, this statement was qualified with "for its generation" for that very reason. Steve7c8 (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

In the future, please don't make unsourced changes to cited content (I'm assuming you didn't check the cited source to see if that claim was there?). Schierbecker (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• The "benchmark" claim needs to be restated in the body at the very least. The lede isn't for making new claims. I would prefer that that statement would be removed from the lede too. Schierbecker (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

While I can't speak for the original edit that added the word "unprecedented", the cited source, Aronstein, does state something similar.

The success of all four Dem/Val prototype airframe/engine combinations in achieving unprecedented performance characteristics is just one example of how effectively technical risk was managed in the ATF program.

Aronstein, Piccirillo, F-22 Raptor: Origins of the 21st Century Air Dominance Fighter, page 254

Steve7c8 (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

“According to the Oklahoman newspaper Post, citing U.S. military sources that the F-22 Raptor crashed in the north of Jordan, sources tell about the possibility of shoot down the F-22 Raptor aircraft by a Syrian missile Syrian everything and happened near the Syrian border, while a military expert John Blu Reed told the newspaper that the shoot down of the F-22 Raptor confirmation that Syria has a defense system updated the S-300, S 400 missiles or rockets, U.S. expert also stated that U.S. relations – Russia will be even more strained if it is confirmed that Russia has provided to Syria missiles S 400.

On the other hand according to reports from the United States, according to the Los Angeles Times of America, the Syrian defense forces have shot down four missiles launched by the Americans type Tomahawk, sources tell us that it was the defense systems (Pantsir-S1) anti-aircraft missiles that have made that American missiles struck, and centered in the middle, the sources of Washington state that four missiles were launched to test the degree of defense of the Syrian forces, the sources have also confirmed that one of the main reasons in stopping aggression against Syria is the overthrow of the American F-22 Raptor crashed yesterday in the north of Jordan, also also deal with the part of the Syrian air defense missiles to the four Tomahawk, remember that Jordan is still home to its territory five F-22, and this was one of the main reasons to postpone the trial of aggression against Syria.”

Link: https://www.moddb.com/groups/aircraft-lovers-group/images/syrian-air-defense-possibly-shot-down-a-f-22

Probably this information should be included in article since sources are US News papers… Calimero (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

We would need to see the actual sources before discussing this. A forum for a game modding website isn't a reliable source. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The newspaper referred to in that post doesn't actually exist. This nonsense shouldn't be entertained. Steve7c8 (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Just to follow up, not sure why this nonsense hasn't been deleted or archived yet, this story was first circulated in September 2013 in some Arabic online sources, which was then machine-translated into Italian and then into English. The allegation is extremely dubious as there is no newspaper that matches the name provided, and even accounting for errors in translation, no Oklahoman news sources have ever reported anything similar to confirms these allegations; there are no articles from the LA Times regarding Tomahawk shot by Pantsir either. Additionally, there are no sources or references for a "military expert" named "John Blu Reed" (a rather laughably generic name), and there is no evidence to show that the S-300 or S-400 was deployed to Syria in the 2013 timeframe, nor is there evidence to show any F-22 deployments to Jordan at that time either. To this day, no evidence of this allegedly shootdown has been presented. In other words, Calimero is basing his assumptions on an extremely dubious report with no actual news sources to back it up and no evidence to support or verify the alleged event. The fact that people fall for this kind of nonsense is quite irritating, but this shows the pernicious effect of disinformation on the ignorant or uninformed (or those who have an agenda and want to believe anything that may support that regardless of the truth). Steve7c8 (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

In addition, I was able to find a source from a year earlier by reverse image searching the picture of the wreckage they have. What I found claims it was from the 1992 YF 22 crash. https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/lockheed-martin-f-22-raptor YEEETER0 (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Tail doesn't look like a F22; maybe an Iranian F14?

Wrong stabilizer shape and angle. Definitely not a Tomcat. Spartan198 (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Currently, the article states that of the 195 F-22s that were built, 8 were test (EMD) and 187 were operational aircraft. However, the correct figures are 9 EMD, (91-4001 to 91-4009), and 186, (99-4010 to 10-4195).^[1][2] Unfortunately, the incorrect figures of 8 and 187 were stated in official sources sometimes, so I'm not sure how we can correct this. Steve7c8 (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Typically, when there is a discrepancy between sources, there are a few different ways to handle it, and some editorial judgment must come into play. First, you can weigh the reliability of sources against one another. For example, if a magazine says honey can cure all sorts of diseases and ailments, but a book written by medical experts that cites actual studies says the opposite, obviously we would go with the better source. However, in other cases the reliability of conflicting sources may be on par with each other, in which case we simply tell what both sources say, as in "Source A says this, while source B says that..." (or something along those lines). Of course, there are other cases where sources may conflict wildly, and often this comes from a lack of understanding or even a clear definition of a word. As an example of that, some sources say the first dogfight happened over France, while others say it was Germany, Russia, or even Mexico. Everybody wants to claim the all-important "first", but it really depends on how exactly you define a dogfight. (ie: Shooting with handguns or forward-firing guns? Close range or BVR?) In those cases I found it best just to avoid the word "first" and list the events in order, and let the reader decide. It all depends on the individual case. Zaereth (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

One explanation for the discrepancy is that the last two EMD aircraft are considered to be PRTV (Production Representative Test Vehicle), while later on a dedicated Block 30 test aircraft, 06-4132, was built specifically for the 411th FLTS. Perhaps this method of accounting is how we got 8 and 187 rather than 9 and 186, but this would be me doing synthesis and original research. Even Lockheed Martin itself doesn't stay consistent on this. Steve7c8 (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, and I can't help but think that there may be a reason for that. I mean, we're talking about an industry that is inherently secretive and prone to misinformation and disinformation. Of course, being a very large project, it may be that somewhere along the grapevine some numbers got twisted around, or it may even be as simple as a typo that never got corrected, and was later picked up by other sources. Let me ask this, is there some reason you believe that one set of numbers are the correct ones, and if so, what is your reasoning that brought you to that conclusion? Zaereth (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

It could also be an accounting thing, where the Block 30 test aircraft was paid for with production money, or some such thing. If a reliable source deals with a reason for the discrepancy, then we can cite that. BilCat (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

True, but I'm just trying to figure out if there is some "the sky is blue" fact or series of logical steps that would demonstrate that one set is correct and the other therefore must not be, but as I haven't read the sources (and don't really have time at the moment) I'm not seeing that as of yet. Perhaps we should simply note that there is a discrepancy and leave it at that, without any reason, but if there is some logical argument why one should prevail I'm open to hearing it. Zaereth (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

See my response below, but for correctness sake I'm inclined towards 9 and 186. The problem is that during the debate in 2009 about whether or not to continue production, 187 was the number used to describe the cap of operational production aircraft, which is why I'm hesitant to change it. Again, even Lockheed Martin isn't consistent in counting EMD and production aircraft, and the explanation I gave above is the one that makes the most sense. It's also noteworthy that the two PRTV aircraft were part of OT&E as they're essentially production quality. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The reasoning behind 9 and 186 is that these are the numbers given by Lockheed Martin in 2022 F-22 Fast Facts sheet.^[3] This also aligns with the serial numbers, where 4001 to 4009 are EMD aircraft (see reference above), while 4010 to 4195 are production aircraft. Again, the confusion comes from the fact that USAF and Lockheed Martin has previously released statements stating 8 and 187 respectively, such as this article from Lockheed Martin stating that 4195 is the 187th production aircraft.^[4] Steve7c8 (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I'd go with 187/8 in the infobox, and note the discrepancy of 186/9 in a footnote, but the reverse is OK if the majority here goes with that. Whichever way we go now, we can always switch it at a later date. We should also explain the discrepancy somewhere in the body with the sources. BilCat (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Either way looks fine to me. In the grand scheme of things it's not something I would lose any sleep over. Zaereth (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The current number is 185^[5], of which 4 are for developmental test and 6-8 are used for operational test, depending on what's being developed. Note there were 186 until May 2020, when a training Block 20 aircraft crashed on takeoff^[6]. Note also tail 4006, which was the first operational aircraft, was retired in 2012 due to budget cuts, and returned to service for testing in 2018. ^[7]

Yes, because a number of EMD aircraft have been retired either as maintenance trainers or are in museums. For instance, 4002 became a maintenance trainer before being transferred to Hill AFB this year as a museum piece. 4006 is the oldest flying aircraft.

Development test aircraft should be 4006, 4007, 4009, (Block 10 aircraft) and 4132 (Block 30), while operational test aircraft include 4065, 4069, 4070, and several others (don’t remember all the serial numbers). What’s odd is that it’s the OT aircraft that were seen wearing the reflective coatings. Steve7c8 (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Developmental Test [2] is an acquisition term, meaning using R&D funding. The 4 DT aircraft are at Edwards AFB. The Operational Test aircraft use production run or 'production representative' parts and software. And yes, while the OT jets aren't programmed for combat, they are functionally equivalent and could be sent as is if the conflict were urgent enough. DeknMike (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

You are all forgetting the most important fact that one hull (regardless of what aircraft) is always meant for stress test. As such it's not a complete aircraft as the rest and it's worthless after the test other than for display. That's why the count differ. Mightyname (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I just wanted to take a moment and explain why I believe that F-22 works better than ATF when describing how many fighters were initially going to be purchased. I understand that saying that they were planning to purchase ATFs makes more technical sense, but I think that may confuse readers a little bit, and that F-22, while not technically accurate, more effectively conveys the information. Cheers! Googleguy007 (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Personally, I prefer to avoid acronyms whenever possible, but especially when they are easily mistaken for other acronyms, because that's like throwing a monkey wrench into the works. It's not much more difficult to just spell them out. In this case, the most common use for "ATF" is for "automatic transmission fluid", which doesn't belong in an article about planes. The second most common use is for the Bureau of "Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms". I can't remember what the term stands for in this article, and I suspect many other readers will have the same problem, hence the monkey wrench. I'd either spell it out, or, if the context allows, replace it with F-22 as Googleguy suggests. Zaereth (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit more specific on the context that "ATF" is used vice "F-22". I would choose "ATF" when it's in the context of USAF program statements and procurement plans before the EMD downselect between the F-22 and F-23 in April 1991, and "F-22" for anything after that. Steve7c8 (talk) 10:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• Using AFT (advanced tactical fighter) is the best choice since the total is from plans in the mid-1980s, before the YF-22 was selected over the YF-23 in 1991. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Acronym obscurity aside both are also different aircrafts more so than the usual difference. The ATF had different placement of the intakes due to obviously different speed goals among others. So they shouldn't be viewed as one and the same to begin with. Mightyname (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Advanced Tactical Fighter (AFT) was the program to procure a new fighter and had program requirements such as planned acquisition numbers well before the selection was made. Actual procurement plans for the F-22 after selection is another matter. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)