Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor/Archive 3

air dominance?
I'm not an expert or even a buff... but most planes like this are listed as "air superiority". This one is "air dominance", which if you look it up, doesn't actually have a compatible definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.107.130 (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There isn't a formal definition of "air dominance"; it's more a phrase intended to underscore that it not only is a top "air superiority" fighter in the traditional sense, but also has electronic, network-centric, stealth and other performance capabilities never seen before. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As he said, Air dominance is the US Air Force's terminology. The infobox type does list air superiority.  That should help, but may confuse some.  -Fnlayson 17:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Formal definition of air dominance is an aircraft can be found here http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA398411 In a nutshell air dominance requires and aircraft to have stealth, supercruise, High-Altitude operational ceiling, integrated Avionics, dominant Air-to-Air Capability, significant Lethal Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) Capability, substantial Precision Strike Capability, intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) Capability, network Expansion. http://www.f22-raptor.com/government/dominance.html It is much more than just air superiority.70.107.173.5 03:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, neither source actually defines what "air dominance" means. Although the article referred to in the first link might have a definition, this link is just to an abstract which does not. The second uses "Air Dominance" simply as a header; it's not clear that the list appended to the subsequent text is even intended to be a definition of "air dominance", but more probably a list of the F-22's capabilities that contribute to it. (All the text says is "F-22 capabilities distill nearly all requisite theater enablers into a single platform" – but the relationship of "theater enablers" to "air dominance" in toto is not at all clearly made.) Askari Mark (Talk) 03:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You are really splitting hairs. The air force, the user of the aircraft, the entity that wrote the requirements for it's development calls it an air dominance fighter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.173.5 (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mark's assessment. The F-22 is a multi-role air superiority fighter. Besides, 70.107.173.5, you do not have consensus for a change and are in violation of the 3R rule if you continue this edit war. FWIW Bzuk 04:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Same here, the mission is clearly air superiority. The "air dominance" thing is just a PR stunt. --McSly 04:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just did a google search on F-22 and air superiority- 45,200 hits, F-22-air dominance- 4,200 hits- all recent and only on USAF releases (it is obviously a PR initiative by the USAF) and is not generally accepted terminology. FWIW Bzuk 04:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC).


 * The Type field in the Infobox is for a general category info. We're not required to use the AF's precise terminalogy.  Air dominace is used in the text.  It looks like you're just trying to be disruptive here. -Fnlayson 04:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it's all about accuracy and getting facts straight. The air force says that the plane whose requirements it wrote and who OPERATES it say that it is an air dominance fighter. The F-15 is an air superiority fighter. 35 years ago there where not too many references to air superiority until the F-15 came along. The F-22 takes it one step further.


 * I really feel sorry for you if you call trying to get things right disruptive. As for consensus, well that is one of wikipedias flaws. Most of its editors value consensus over fact. 162.83.226.72 05:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I repeat, if you can't play by the rules, why are you here? FWIW Bzuk 05:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Facts, Facts. It's got nothing to do with rules but the information is taken straight (WORD FOR WORD)from the air force FACT file on the F-22. There really is nothing to discuss. 162.83.226.119 06:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting other's "good faith edits" constantly and not seeking a resolution here is in contravention of the guidelines established by Wikipedia. Since I assume you are a new editor, let me review the guidelines that all Wikipedia editors follow. The basic tenets of Wikipedia use include:
 * Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them;
 * Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations;
 * Stay cool when the editing gets hot;
 * Avoid edit wars and follow the three-revert rule;
 * Act in good faith;
 * Never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point;
 * Assume good faith on the part of others, and
 * Be open and welcoming.

At this point, you have been in contravention of all of these guidelines and although these tenets are established to illustrate and guide progress, they are the "backbone" of civil discourse in what is primarily an "open" forum. FWIW Bzuk 06:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC).


 * BZuk, unless I'm greeatly mistaken, this is a user (Wikizilla) who has been banned for edit-warring and sock-puppetry. It's already demonstrated it's not interested in rules. Let's try to concentrate on forming a consensus without it, since they have no interest in gaining a consensus. For the record, gaining a consensus is not about ignoring "facts", but about convincing others that your facts are what should be presented. The USAF calls it an "Air dominance fighter", and no one disputes that, nor is anyone saying that can't be in the text. Should we use what is apparently a marketing term to describe one individual type fighter in the Infobox? The infobox is there to present a quick summary of information to those unfamilar with the type, or those wanting a quick overview. As such, we should use more general categories, not plane-specific terms. THose who disagree should focus on why such a narrow term should be used in the infobox. Up to this point, no attempt has been made to do this. Instead, a bunch of quotes have been thrown out, and then unilateral changes made to the article. So please: convince us, but don't insult us. - BillCJ 06:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Bill, again, you make perfect sense. No use arguing with someone who is looking to pick a fight. However, I think it would be useful to establish a few "standard" infobox designations: Fighter, Bomber, Reconnaissance aircraft, Fighter-bomber, and so on. FWIW Bzuk 07:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC).


 * “You are really splitting hairs.” – Not at all ... unless you call someone else offering better facts than yours “splitting hairs”. Frankly, ‘70’, the fact is that neither of the links you offered as evidence that “supports” your claims truly does so (“word for word” or otherwise). Moreover, it's irrelevant as far as the infobox goes, as I and BillCJ.  Furthermore, what ‘162’ (same person, different IP?) calls an “air force FACT file” was clearly an advertising flier published by the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin.  I do agree with ‘162’ on one thing, which is that further discussion does appear useless with anons who believe that their being able to unilaterally impose their opinions, posturing as “facts”, upon Wikipedia makes Wikipedia “flawed”.  (BTW, it is not vandalism to remove facts – assuming they really are such – from an article if they are irrelevant to an article or to a particular section of it.) Askari Mark (Talk) 00:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199 Two thirds of the way down the page: "Primary Function: Air dominance, multi-role fighter"  The last time I looked that URL clearly comes from the air force. Notice the URL af=air force mil=military domain. Not exactly an advertising flier published by Lockheed. In fact http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=101 is the one for the F-15. Made by Boeing. Notice further on the F-22 page at the bottom. The contact is Point of Contact
 * "Air Combat Command, Public Affairs Office; 130 Andrews St., Suite 202; Langley AFB, VA 23665-1987; DSN 574-5007 or (757) 764-5007; e-mail: accpa.operations@langley.af.mil" Hmmm Air Combat Command that must be some marketing organization I guess.
 * Funny, like AF and .mil takes decoding. Watch the smarta- edit summaries and be civil.  The military does "marketing" to get public and political support for their hardware.  And it's not a new thing. -Fnlayson 04:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So tell me then, what is not "marketing"? Was it marketing when the the air force used the term air superiority fighter with the F-15. Your premise is ridiculous. Lets discount any citation from the air force about the plane. Of course its all just PR. Now we throw out citations from the air force about their fighter. Hahaha. Wiki falls to new lows. It would be funny except that anytime you do a search on something wikistupidity shows up in the top three entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.128.109 (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't kowtow to everything the military says. Technical specs, fine. Fancy terms that no one else uses, to describe its newest fighter? Not fine. The funny thing about your comment above, about the sources you're using, is that you ignored that the POC is the Public Affairs Office, which is very much the military's very biased PR and marketing organization. Parsecboy 12:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Try again. I was referring to the two references you gave early in this section beginning with "Formal definition of air dominance is an aircraft can be found here...". Apparently you can only be bothered to seek better sources when your bad ones are exposed. Perhaps careless inattention is why you keep seeking to put a marketing name in an infobox that calls for a generic name? Or do you just like trolling? Tell you what, if you can find the USAF's formal definition of "Air Dominance" – it's available, but I don't know if it's online – and show that the F-22's original requirements were for it to be an "air dominance fighter", then we can default to your desire. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My desire has been met with the term "fighter". Air Superiority clearly is not what the AF is calling it and whether it's PR or not it's their plane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.128.109 (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * USAF doesn't call the F-22 an "air superiority fighter"? Au contraire. You must not have bothered to look. It took me all of the time to type in an appropriate Google search to find this: "The development and production of F-22 air superiority fighters is estimated to cost $99.1 billion (then-year dollars)." (Emphasis added.) You'd think this was rocket science; a little more looking and you'll find many more. So, please, no more trolling over this. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The recent edit war on the main article constituted a contravention of Content forking; contentious issues should be deliberated first on the talk page. Continuing in this manner will result in future administrative actions. FWIW Bzuk 00:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC).

I want to remove this statement here: The US Air Force claims that the F-22A cannot be matched by any known or projected fighter. IT is speculation and marketing bs. IT has nothing to do in an encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobile1 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a statement by the operator not the contractor and can hardly be characterized as marketing. Besides the removal of a cited statement is not normal practice. Instead of reverting, try to improve the statement. Bzuk 20:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Marketing does not need to come from the contractor per definition. The statement is not only absurd but principally wrong. Besides what you are critizing -removal of a cited statement- is exactly what YOU did with my cited statement content (the NAS china station incident). It's said to see how biased US weapon entries are on wikipedia. Instead of removing my citation of the NAS china station incident, try to improve the statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.190.6 (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you mean by "YOU" somebody else then that's fine, but I didn't revert anything. Check the edit history, you were reverted by an admin due to an example of coyviol. FWIW Bzuk 00:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC).


 * The problem with your NAS China Lake section is that has not yet been proven as true. Some forums and a Wikipedia mirror do not count as reliable sources. Read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. Parsecboy 00:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

So where are we on the debate – and attempt to gain consensus – regarding what generic class of fighter the F-22 is? So far, the only evidence offered by those who insist on “air dominance” – on their “say so” – have been the following:


 * 1) A “formal definition of air dominance” that doesn’t define it.
 * 2) A contractor webpage (see the copyright notice) that they say also defines “air dominance”, but doesn’t – it just offers a list generic F-22 capabilities under a header of “air dominance” and makes no attempt to define just what the concept entails.
 * 3) Unsourced assertions that the USAF officially calls the F-22 “air dominance fighter” (in preference to “air superiority fighter” or “stealth fighter” or “next-generation fighter” or “5th-generation fighter” or “fighter aircraft” or several other appellations that can be found in USAF, DoD, or other US government entities).
 * 4) A http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199 USAF fact sheet that mentions two-thirds the way down the page a single summary info line that reads “Primary Function: Air dominance, multi-role fighter”, quite ignoring not only the fact that the very first line just calls it a “fighter”, but nowhere in text of the main article is the F-22 called an “air dominance fighter”.

I’ve invited them to offer the USAF's formal definition of “Air Dominance” and to show that the F-22's original requirements were for it to be an "air dominance fighter" – in short, to prove that there is such a thing (that is, beyond “marketing-speak”) – but no dice. Yet, somehow, we’re supposed to accept that one term among the many terms the USAF uses to describe the F-22 as both “official” and meaning something – as yet unidentified – more than “air superiority fighter”. Kind of hard to kowtow to the sort of “evidence” that is really based on nothing more than “Trust me, I know better than you.”

And, yes, the USAF freely uses other terms for the F-22 with just as much aplomb. A few examples (emphasis added in all cases):


 * 1) The Air University’s "Air & Space Power Journal": “Meanwhile, however, the Air Force has spent close to $20 billion on engineering and manufacturing development of the F-22 air superiority fighter (which will cost at least $100 million per copy to produce).”
 * 2) Same source: “For example, the F/A-22, the Air Force’s new air-superiority fighter, only recently received congressional approval for production.”
 * 3) MILNET fact sheet entitled: “MILNET: F-22 Raptor Air Superiority Fighter”
 * 4) Air University Press publication:  Title: “The Air Superiority Fighter and Defense Transformation; Why DOD Requirements Demand the F/A-22 Raptor” Foreword written by USAF Maj Gen Bentley B. Rayburn, Commandant, Air War College (Think he’d know?):  “In this paper, Lt Col Devin L. Cate tackles the question of whether an air superiority fighter is relevant to warfare in the twenty-first century. Critics of the F/A-22, the US Air Force’s next generation air superiority fighter, have identified it as a cold war relic—unjustifiably expensive and out of step with the Department of Defense (DOD) transformation.”
 * 5) "Airman", an official USAF publication:  “Plans call for the F-35 to be the world’s premier strike aircraft through 2040, said Edward C. ‘Pete’ Aldridge Jr., under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics. ‘It will provide air-to-air capability second only to the F-22 air superiority fighter,” he said.”  (Think he’d know?)
 * 6) Same source: “An F-22 Raptor soars high above the Sierra Nevada. The Air Force’s new air superiority fighter will dominate the future air combat arena by integrating advanced avionics, stealth and supercruise.”
 * 7) Air Force Link, the USAF’s official website: “Elmendorf became the second operational base and the first Pacific Air Forces installation to receive the Air Force's new superiority fighter.”  (The term “air dominance” shows up nowhere.)
 * 8) Same source: “Far from being just boxes of materiel or the world's largest model kit, this cargo, once assembled by the men and women of the F-22 test force, became the first of what is now officially the air superiority fighter providing air dominance for the Joint Force, the F-22A aircraft called ‘Raptor 1.’” (Note that “air dominance is just something the F-22 “air superiority fighter” provides.)
 * 9) Same source: Article title: “Raptors to bring air superiority to Northern Edge 2006”  “The F-22A, a critical component of the Global Strike Task Force, is designed to project air dominance rapidly and at great distances and defeat threats attempting to deny access to the nation's Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps.”  (Again, “air dominance” is something it “projects”.)
 * 10) Also on the same LM F-22 website that the anons link as "proof" the USAF has named it an "air dominance fighter": “As the world’s only operational fifth-generation fighter, the F-22 Raptor is, and will remain, unprecedented in its total integration of stealth and advanced avionics. … This fighter will provide air dominance and a precision ground attack capability for U.S. forces for the next 40 years.”

So, as you can see, the USAF is just as comfortable with using the term “air superiority fighter” to describe the F-22 as it is with “air dominance fighter” – and these sources date from 1997 to 2007. There is nothing official or even semi-official about the latter term and therefore no reason to prefer it over anything else. Let’s ignore the trolls, please, and get on with improving the article. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well stated Mark, this "tempest in a teacup" debate was very taxing and sapped a lot of energy. I agree, let's move forward, you have a consensus behind you for that decision. FWIW Bzuk 02:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC).


 * run this page through the Wikiscanner, to see where the edits come from... proving my point I made earlier regarding bias in the editing of this article. You see past edits coming from Boeing, Lockhead, the PENTAGON, LOTS AND LOTS from Washington, interestingly they tend to focus on comparisons and a variety of other military bases and institutions, Washington School Information Processing Cooperative (??)... It's even more extreme when you run Russian systems such as the S-400 Triumf through the scanner... 99th Communications Squadron San Diego, lots of different AFB...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobile1 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm noone have an opinion on why government pops up on past edits...? It just proofs my point that this ARTICLE IS BIASED and simply should be marked as such.


 * Many people have responded (whoever you are). Please sign your posts as well. Furthermore, your assertions do not match with Wikipedia policy, WP:COI. It only states that people should be careful, not that they can't edit. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

- I can only agree with him, even the pricetag of this plane is manipulated, but why even bother, this WIKI page is clearly biased, and it will continue to be so. There should be a clear warning on this article about the bias --Financialmodel (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Airframe
I added a subsection to cover the F-22's airframe. The changes from the YF-22 to F-22 are there now. Another subsection just for that seems like oversectioning. I plan to add some description of the airframe's basic features. I don't see the chines mentioned. Also, the airframe uses a lot of composite skins and titanium. -Fnlayson 03:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The airframe subsection uses the adjective small describing the airframe changes from the YF-22 to the F-22, but the changes mentioned are substantial- reduced the sweep of the leading edge, resized the tail, moving the cockpit, moving the inlets. Would it be more accurate to just leave out the word- small especially when the difference is described as substantial in a section deeper in the article?

Wnshelton (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The changes overall to the airframe are not major. Each change described seem like a minor deal and small seemed fair.  The article is locked now so no rush to fix/change... -Fnlayson (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Corrosion problem
F-22 Raptor's makers knew for 10 years of corrosion problem, which is costing millions to fix at Hill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.187.117.88 (talk) 06:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why can't anon IP's edit the article?
Without explanation, the article can't be edited by anonymous IP's (I would sign in, but I've forgotten my password, and don't feel like looking it up at the moment). I wanted to remove the fact check for the "100th F-22 delivered in [August] 2007" and add this citation: http://www.f-16.net/news_article2489.html 70.243.231.144 15:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't comment here as I was unaware that the article is protected but it may very well be as there was a contentious issue that arose concerning the F-22/Typhoon and it may have received some type of sprotect protection to limit the edits to established editors (not saying that anons could not provide valuable information but that is the standard route in the first level of protection is to limit the number of editors...). FWIW Bzuk 15:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC).


 * Indeed, it was temporarily soft-protected, with the reason given as "edit warring by IPs", with an expiry time of 27 Oct. Parsecboy 15:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I s-protected it on 10/7 because of the problems with the Wikzilla socks/IPs, which were directly related to the Typhoon edit war. Since it's close to the 27th, I've gone ahead an unprotected it...IPs can edit again, but if an edit war breaks out, I'll not hesitate to s-protect again.  AK Radecki Speaketh  16:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that didn't last long, and due to an attack by an IP editor who has no regards for working with others, the article is sprotected again. I'm sorry, 70.243.231.144, that you didn't get a chance to make your constructive addition. I've gone ahead and added the information for you. It's too bad that the antics of a few trolls make it difficult for other well-meaning IP editors to work here.  AK Radecki Speaketh  16:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Comparisons Section?
I've been considering this for a while now, but should the "Comparisons" section be deleted? Now I'm not trying to cause trouble or anything, I'm merely suggesting that, since this section is apparently upsetting some people and if the section was deleted, perhaps this could help improve the article's quality. RaptorR3d 00:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I support removal of the comparison section - perhaps it will make more sense to add it again later, but there really is not too much public data about the F-22 slight envelope or flight characteristics right now. Also, I believe the comparison section was removed from the Typhoon section as it was too controversial; no one seemed to come to a consensus about what was NPOV. Nicholas SL Smith 00:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * THe section is definitely contentios, and is not a usual feature in aircraft airticles on Wikipedia. Concur with deletion. - BillCJ 00:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above. Go ahead and nuke it. Parsecboy 00:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a thought, why not make it as a sub-article? FWIW Bzuk 03:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC).


 * A separate comparison(s) article could turn into a speculation mess worse than 4th generation jet fighter before long. -Fnlayson 03:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose some modern fighter aircraft comparison article may be a good thing - but I don't see how this information could stand alone. It seems best to allow readers to compare one article to another to compare aircraft.  If we begin duplicating information, we may loose consistency. Also, I agree with Fnlayson, on other fighter pages such as the Typhoon, these sections turn into "pissing matches" between fans of respective jets.  I can see the value of it - but it was be very difficult to keep on topic and accurate.  Nicholas SL Smith 03:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is indeed the sort of section that begs for fanwars. There is some good info in it, though, which should be migrated elsewhere before cutting the rest. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, unless there are any objections, then the comparisons shall be deleted for now. RaptorR3d 16:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Provide some description of your edit in the edit summary box in the future. Thanks. -Fnlayson 16:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll try to remember that next time. RaptorR3d 16:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Since there seems to be some disagreement about the removal of the section, I am requesting a formal vote on consensus (the following have already registered their vote):
 * Call for a consensus on deletion/removal of the Comparisons section
 * Agree RaptorR3d
 * Agree Fnlayson
 * Agree Nicholas SL Smith
 * Agree Askari Mark (but salvaging what is useful)
 * Agree Parsecboy
 * Agree BillCJ FWIW
 * Agree Bzuk 05:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Agree Gscshoyru 12:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree ZakuTalk 13:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree Nicholas SL Smith I love the jet - but leave interpretation to readers.

Frankly you can all take your consensus and shove it. Those are relevant facts cited by reliable sources. They serve to help illustrate the F-22's advanced features and capabilities. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, since when does the decision to include or exclude relevant facts constitute something you vote on. Why not call it "Wikipedia - the website where we vote on what is factual". 162.84.187.178 06:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Regardless of your personal views, Wikipedia operates by consensus to decide contentious issues. Register your vote and give the process time to develop a consensus from interested parties. My suggestion to you is to offer an alternative: perhaps creating a separate sub-article? working with others? taking a new direction? FWIW Bzuk 06:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC).


 * The above IP is another sock-puppet of User:WIkzilla. It's easy to tell. Until he changes his behavior, it's best to just ingore his opinions till he moves on. - BillCJ 06:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

- BillCJ 06:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * SIGH. Article is s-protected once again thanks to Wikzilla's IP attack.  AK Radecki Speaketh  13:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * On that note, is there any reason for the "The US Airforce Claims it cannot be matched by any projcted aircraft" in the introduction of the article? I'll admit, while I do support the F-22, I feel that that statement is really not necessary for the article. Any other thoughts? RaptorR3d 18:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I had moved that to Comparisons, but a couple IPs keep adding it back to the lead. That probably should be moved, but I'm not sure about where.  The bottom on the Characteristics sections seems like a decent spot. -Fnlayson 18:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Claims of the USAF aren't pertinent to the aircraft. I claim it can't fly the Incredible Hulk into orbit, but I shouldn't and wont add it to the article. Nicholas SL Smith 00:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's fine for the intro ... and the USAF did put a huge amount of (taxpayer) money into developing it to be so. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll submit to that - as long as it doesn't mislead to anyone or look like it is portraying a fact. Nicholas SL Smith 02:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's wrong and doesnt belong in here at all. The statement is a fairly dumb one. Claiming that no past nor future plane can match it is a marketing statement and does not belong here if it's so obviously wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobile1 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a difference between "projected" and "future". Projected fighters are those such as MiG 1.44 or the Sukhoi PAK FA. It's not a marketing statement; the F22 wasn't built by the Airforce; it's merely the primary operator. Parsecboy 18:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fuel capacity / materials
Hi everyone

I'm Nova13 from the german Wikipedia (userpage, discussion). I found some useful infos about the fuel capacity and the materials of the F-22. Here are the facts:


 * Fuel capacity


 * Materials
 * Titanium: 40%
 * Composites: 24%
 * Aluminum: 15%
 * Steel: 6%
 * Other: 15%

Source: Tecnical Order 00-105E-9, 1 Feb. 2006, Rev. 11 Page 15/16

Feel free to integrate this information. Feedback welcome! --62.226.68.45 14:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The external fuel seems odd. I've never seen anything about the F-22 actually using external hardpoints for anything.  That'd mess up its stealthiness. -Fnlayson 17:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have. It allows the F-22 to carry a greater load of fuel and/or weapons when stealth is not a factor, such as after the enemy's anti-air capability has been eliminated. I suspect that drop tanks could be used on the initial ingress to the target to extend range, then dropped before entering hostile space. - BillCJ 17:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I don't think my F-22 book mentions that or I haven't run across it yet.  The F-35 will probably have more of that. -Fnlayson 17:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My Frawley Military book states it has 4 hardpoints capabel of 5000 lbs each. THough I haven't found a direct reference to when it would carry external weapons, it would make no sense to build heavier wings that could structurally carry external stores if you knew you could never use them. - BillCJ 17:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, however, external munitions or fuel also slow the plane down. Supercruising would cost more fuel, and the top speed would be limited, by a few mph or a couple hundred, depending on cargo. In addition to this, the Raptor's manueverability is also limited by external usage, and is why internal stores are so important with the this plane. Hope this helps!Darkƒire 23:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The F-22 was specifically designed with the capability for external hardpoints, where (as mentioned above) stealth was not a factor, or the need was dire. Every missile in service in the USAF can be fitted to said hardpoints, as can aforementioned drop tanks.
 * FWIW...here's a pic that's not really good enough for the main page, but which clearly shows the external fuel tanks. This pair went back and forth overhead several times in the R-2515 supersonic corridor over Mojave.  AK Radecki Speaketh  00:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Cut it out
Hey who kepts deleting the facts that the jet was used by the US air Force in the popular cultures section?(TougHHead 00:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC))
 * It looks like everyone who comes across this statement. It's redundant, and has been reverted by a number of editors as plain "poorly written." FWIW Bzuk 02:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

Also books are also not ever ever notable and thats considered spamming, hacking and a computer crime. Plus I read those books and never saw the part where the Raptor is in any book.(TougHHead 05:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC))
 * The F-22 has been featured in numerous books, such as Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor (1994). A lengthy mission by F-22s dominates the last part of the book and Fighter Wing (1995) where the F-22 features as a major new combat aircraft in Clancy's non-fiction book. Clive Cussler's Dark Watch (2005) has a F-22 in a secret mission to take out a Syrian foe. BTW, where did you get the information that citing books in popular culture is a computer crime? FWIW Bzuk 05:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC).


 * TougHHead, please stop throwing a hissy fit. Some things are notable, some aren't. I've read most of those books and saw all those films when you were still in diapers. But I realize Wikipedia has rules, and I follow them. Notability is a policy, not a guideline, and we have to follow it; like it or not. THose books, games, films, and TV shows we all like and love have articles, and that is the proper place to mention what those films contain. So please, stop whining, and try to enjoy being able to contribute to making meaningful articles about the aircraft you love even better by focusing on the aircraft themselves. - BillCJ 05:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue of lists of "appearances in popular culture" has been raised before and addressed with a sort of guidelines by the Military History Project, the guideline is here: WP:MILMOS. These guidelines preclude lists or sections naming one appearance after the other. --Deon Steyn 08:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Also I looked up Hollywood and how are they supposed to film a 700 pound advanced tactical fighter in the boundaries of Hollywood? Jets can't land in the Hollywood boundaries and needed a very long runway which it had none. (TougHHead 06:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC))
 * What are you talking about? Bzuk 06:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

When filming the jet you need room for the big aircraft but Hollywood got no room.(TougHHead 06:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC))
 * What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? FWIW Bzuk 06:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC).


 * I think he;s nit-picking about the mention regarding the F-22's "prominent Hollywood debut". It appears TougH is trying to get back at editors like me who have been limiting the Pop culture appearences he's been adding by trying to take everything he thinks is equal to his items out. Only thing is, he's going about it bass-akwards, and may end up earning himself antoehr block for disruptive behaivor. Also, he doens't seem to realize that a lot of us aircraft aritcle editors actually don't want ANY pop culture netions in any of the articles, period/full-stop. However, we abide by the basic WIkipedia principle of following consensus, even when we disagree. That means THREE Transformers in the F-15 article, and flight sims in pop culture sections where applicable. - BillCJ 07:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Beyond that, I believe something odd is going on here (now, that's an understatement given this is Wikipedia!). See: where this argument is being drawn out in a similar fashion. FWIW, it seems some people have lot of time on their hands. Bzuk 14:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

Can we please end this discussion? For some reason edit warring on a popular Jet Fighter is not very fun along with arguing over the tlak pages.(TougHHead 01:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Just ignore it then.. -Fnlayson 01:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And don't edit war. (Note: you do seem to have stopped doing that, thankfully.) - BillCJ 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hulk - Again, again, again ...

 * I was here a while ago and thought the pop culture section was a bit odd - but even more bizarre was the erroneous mention of Transformers. It was clearly The Hulk. Duh.;)Happysomeone 00:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Per the instructions on the main page, I'll put off the proposed change above for a short period of time so others can review it. Here's an independent source that verifies the small but significant role played by the F-22 - A role significant enough that it struck me as odd it wasn't mentioned. The jets appear twice, for about 2 to 3 minutes of the film. They try to kill "The Hulk" both times in extended sequences. A quote from one of the pilots in the first scene: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286716/quotes Happysomeone 00:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Notably the F-22 pilot, actor Randy Neville, is credited: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286716/fullcredits Happysomeone 01:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, look here for the mention of the other significant scene. It's about halfway down the page: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286716/triviaHappysomeone 01:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's still a minor role and non-notable. More links won't change that. -Fnlayson 01:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * then I suggest the entry simply read "The F-22 played a major role... Transformers," instead of using "first prominent Hollywood debut" which is POV, misleading and inaccurate. Happysomeone 01:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Those have the same basic meaning. Prominent is an approximate synonym for major. -Fnlayson 01:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link. With due respect, the first definition of prominent, "1. standing out so as to be seen easily; conspicuous; particularly noticeable:" seems to agree with my assertion: several minutes of F-22 footage in a motion picture ("The Hulk") for the first time is conspicuous and particularly noticeable, therefore "notable."Happysomeone 02:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Or "leading, important, or well-known". -Fnlayson 02:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The Hulk appearance has been discussed numerous times already on this talk page, and has never been accepted by consensus as "prominent", or even notable. For the most part, notability is seen when the appearance garners attention is various reputable print/online media sources, or from military publications, as in the case of the Transformers, in which actual F-22s were used for filming, along with other real aircraft. However, if removing the Transformers appearance will mke you happy, I'm all for it! I know it would make me happy! But the Transformers mention is there by consensus, so to remove it, we'd have to get consensus here, or at WT:AIR. - BillCJ 02:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah! Sorry, I was trying to follow the older comments but it seems much has happened since I was here last. I could understand if part of the guidelines required use of actual or "real" aircraft to constitute playing a notable of "significant" role. But as you know, this issue has come up repeatedly. I still maintain it is POV, misleading and inaccurate to make the statement "first prominent Hollywood debut" without mentioning both. Barring that, the entry should be removed. If there is a running vote tally for removal, please add me to it.Happysomeone 02:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I added the heading mainly because the whole section was getting too long, and the Hulk topic made a good place to start.

PLease realize that many Wikipeidians active in the MILHIST, Aircraft and Aviation Projects consider themsleve (myself included) to be "serious editors". As such, we want the content of aircraft aritcles to focus solely on the aircraft itself, without ANY coverage of trivia (per WP:ATRIV guidelines) or the similar Popular culture sections. Many of these editors are aircraft mechanics, pilots, military officers (or both) and veteran enlisted personel, industry-related engineers and designers, light aircraft owners, aviation writers or people otherwise associated with the aircraft. Others, like myself, just have a long love for aircraft, and have read many serious avitaion publications for many years (since age 12 in my case). On the other hand, there many Wiki users whose primary connection to aircraft and military equipment is through video games, popular novels, movies, TV, anime, and comics. THese users tend to feel that EVERY appearance that they can persoanlly remember is import, and thus should be listed. THis is understandable, as everyone wants to contribute to Wikipeida, and it's easy to say, "I saw the X-xxX in this movie!" Or "THis aircraft is in Mental Smear Solid State."
 * I would consider myself an enthusiast in the former category, although I do watch movies from time to time.Happysomeone 17:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, the two extreams cannot co-exist simultaneously. Recognizing there need to be some kind of compromise, MILHIST developed guidelines based on Wikipedia's Avoid trivia sections policy/guidelines. WP:AIR followed with guidelines optimized for aircraft airticles, and limited apperances to those that were "especially notable" or in which the aircraft played a "major" role. Obviously, "especially notable" and "major" are open to interpretation, so in cases were ther are disputes, WP:AIR has required sources attesting to the appearances' notability, based on Wikipedia's Notability Policy for articles.

Rembember, this IS policy: ''WIkipeia is NOT a collection of lists, which is invariably what pop-culture sections turn into if they are not constantly pruned/cut back. We've even tried having pop-culture aritcles for Helicopters or specific, but it turned into such a messy cruft magnet that when the deletion-nazis went after it, we had no way to justify keeping it.

But rather than help solve the problem, may users want to argue incessantly over what constitutes notability. This is to the point now where serious editors like myself are ready to throw away the compromise, and BAN ALL pop culture mentions in aircraft article, PERIOD/FULLSTOP! I've found it's alot easier to explain to teenage and "adult" gamers that no pop culture items are allowed, than to explain why such-and-such movie is in the list, but their favorite game or cartoon is not. I've even had to explain this to someone who interpreted a section to mean "all movies" are notable, but games are not! So, if you really like having some items listed, don't give us serious editors such a hard time over what's in the pop-culture sections. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem! THe alternative is that no pop-culture appearances will be listed at all. In the immortal words of Dirty Harry: GO ahead, make my day! - BillCJ 03:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Having now experienced a taste of this, I would be inclined to support the ban of all "pop culture" references, rather than have something inaccurate presented as fact.Happysomeone 17:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It was not my intention to give anyone a hard time. I have deferred to you thus far as we discuss this very minor issue with an otherwise excellent Wikipedia entry. My position is simple: I don't like inaccuracy or exaggeration. This raised a red flag for me. I would certainly like to be part of the solution. Again, I would move to delete it entirely. Kind Regards. Happysomeone 17:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi everyone, great discussion about a contentious topic. I think the points made by all parties have clearly exhibited the best of wiki discouse – reasoned, polite and well-intentioned. Congrats and as for the topic, probably the consensus-driven soultions still appear to be the best course. FWIW Bzuk 18:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC).

Bzuk, I'm having a hard time finding the thread that found consensus on this. Please direct me to the appropriate fora.Happysomeone 18:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems Fnlayson has kindly weighed my objection and made the appropriate changes. Well done & salutations. Happysomeone 18:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See the archive pages. An IP that signed as "Happysomeone" already replied on this. -Fnlayson 18:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Pop Culture
If you can't put the F-22 Raptor in Flight Sims, Hulk nor Iron Man and only in Transformers that means neither the other jets including the F-35 Lightning II.(TougHHead 01:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Please frame your comments in clear and cogent arguments. I can't understand what the hay you are getting at? I wonder if others have the same impression? FWIW Bzuk 01:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Something like listing the Transformers stuff is not fair because the other stuff isn't listed. An all or none thing.  I think.  But major flight simulators can be listed.  -Fnlayson 01:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * He's saying that if we don't allow the items he like on the F-22 page, he's going to try to remove similar items on other pages on that basis alone, even if it's disruptive. Clearly, Tough either doesn't understnad how consensus works on Wikipedia. Consensus at the page level is not precedent - if you want a consensus to apply to more than one page, you have to discuss it at the Project or Wiki-wide level. But going around to every aircraft page with a pop-culture section and trying to make it conform to the consensus here is disruptive, especially since it appears that Tough is doing this out of spite, not good-faith. - BillCJ 01:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Lets put up a random quote on every article then.(TougHHead 05:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC))


 * I'd suggest you read WP:POINT and WP:DICK. What you are doing and suggesting is disruptive, and is against the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. I gather from your talk page that you exhibited similar behavior on Wikia. I would hope that a person who is older than 35, as you claim to be, would be capalbe of growth, and learn better how to deal with people in a productive manner. Maybe you think that because you're anonymous, it doesn't matter how you behave. If you are really over 35, then you're not one of these typical late-teen/early-20s fanboy gamers we usually get here. I've said before that you show promise, and I meant it, and you then resorted to vandalism. I still think you're capable of better behavior than what you're exhibiting, but you have to choose to behave better. Please make the right choice. You won't have too many more chances. - BillCJ 05:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
There really needs to be a separate section on criticism of this program, as criticism is coming from both sides of the political aisle, unlike earlier fighter programs. The main point should be the argument in politics on whether the aircraft is necessary at all. This is the first fighter program in modern history that I can recall that has had significant criticism from Republicans as well as Democrats. Then you've got the price issue, the limited quantities that the issue forces, and the already-noted quality issues. This is an aircraft that's been in development since the late 80's, and still doesn't have the bugs worked out. Some of that is because of redesign issues, but that should be part of the criticism argument as well. DesScorp 03:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A dedicated Criticism section is not needed. That section would just be a magnet for any and all criticism unfair or not.  I believe all those issues are already mentioned.  What bugs are still lingering? -Fnlayson 04:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually - yes - I'd like to know too... Nicholas SL Smith 02:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Right now, the biggest bug is the design and construction itself, namely faulty access panels that have caused corrosion problems in all existing aircraft, as well as other problems mentioned in the article. Apparently, LM has known about these problems for a decade. There's also the ongoing issue of the massive cost of the plane, which the article largely ignores. The article also ignores the question of whether the plane is relevant, or even just the best solution to the Air Force's needs. In short, the article violates the Wikipedia NPV policy. It's a big rah-rah piece that glosses over criticisms of the plane and the whole program, and reads more like a Lockeed Martin press release than a neutral encyclopedia article.DesScorp (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So, you are arguing that the article is no good. What are the criticisms? Any reliable sources?z66.194.72.10 (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Covering whether the F-22 in relevant or being needed by the Air Force would most likely be Original Research. If you're expecting an editorial page, you're in the wrong place.  There's a fair bit about the high costs. The panel thing seems secondary.  It's not like finding a crack in the airframe. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are lots of critics out there, its just not mentioned in this article, and one can only wonder why? Since you are working in the US aerospace industry Fnlayson, I would have thougt you knew already. Watch this movie with references to US GAO reports if you want just some of the criticism: . I can only agree with DesScorp this article is "a big rah-rah piece that glosses over criticisms of the plane and the whole program, and reads more like a Lockeed Martin press release than a neutral encyclopedia article", but thats because all criticism is deleted by US patriots. I call it patriotic vandalism--Financialmodel (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

- LOL, dont expect criticism here, you landed on the official F-22 fanpage. One can only wonder how there are soo many things one could critize about the f-22, and yet this page have none. If you want to read the sources for cost, your are directed to: "F-22 excels at establishing air dominance" an article from USAF. The cost are not the average cost, but is more than $50 million lower, because prices from budget estimates are cherry picked. As I said, welcome to the F-22 fanpage, if you want "Criticism", go somewhere else. --Financialmodel (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I could fill out pages with criticism from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) - (formerly the "General Accounting Office"):

GAO: June 20, 2006 - Subject: Tactical Aircraft: DOD Should Present a New F-22A Business Case before Making Further Investments: Read page 5: "In other words, the unit procurement costs increase from $166 million per aircraft to $183 million per aircraft for the proposed multiyear contract."

GAO-04-391 (2004) "F/A-22 Aircraft": read e.g. page 12. "Current processors are old and obsolete, cannot be supported, and do not have sufficient capacity to meet the increased processing demands required for planned new air-to-ground capabilities beyond Global StrikeEnhanced....."

GAO-01-310 (2001) Tactical Aircraft:

(read e.g. 25-26) - " the Air Force estimates that by the end of development, the F-22 will be able to complete 2 flying hours between maintenance actions; and when the F-22 reaches maturity in 2008, F-22s will be able to complete 3 flying hours between maintenance actions. However, currently the flight-test aircraft are completing 0.6 flying hours between maintenance actions. This means that aircraft are now requiring significantly more maintenance than is expected when the system reaches maturity."

This source from 2001, believe the F-22 will be "able to complete 3 flying hours between maintenance actions" in 2008, but still in 2007 - 6 years later - the F-22 still cant even complete 1 flying hour between maintenance actions. Read page 87-88 in adope pages, in GAO report 2007 - "Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs" - GAO-07-406SP: "A key reliability requirement for the F-22A is a 3-hour mean time between maintenance, defined as the number of operating hours divided by the number of maintenance actions. This is required by the time it reaches 100,000 operational flying hours, projected to be reached in 2010. Currently the mean time between maintenance is less than 1 hour, or half of what was expected at the end of system development"

.....and yes the "100,000 operational flying hours" is pushed into the future in every report, because the F-22 have soomany bugs, it has less flying hours.

In short, i could fill pages of criticism from U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) - (formerly the "General Accounting Office"), but because of "patriotic vandalism" from American wiki users here, it would be deleted within seconds, and i would waste my time. Watch, just to see some critic, all statements are from U.S. Government Accountability Office.--Financialmodel (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Senator John McCain, "McCAIN INTRODUCES THE DEFENSE ACQUISTION REFORM ACT OF 2007", May 22, 2007:

"As stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars we must assure the public that we are buying the best programs for our servicemen and women at the best price for the taxpayer. I have already highlighted critical weapon systems with key acquisition problems. If we continue to buy weapon systems in an ineffective and inefficient manner so that costs continue to go up or the deployment of the system is delayed, it will only hurt the soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine in the field.

"The reason for this is quite simple. First, it does not take an economics degree to understand that the higher that costs of a weapon system unexpectedly goes up, the fewer of them we can buy. A prime example is the F-22 Raptor. The original requirement was for 781 jet fighters, now we can only afford 183.

--Financialmodel (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The real price of the F-22
Why is the price of the F-22 not correct? Are you simple not aware of the real price or do you try to manipulate it?

The F-22's are bought in smaller quantities at different years at different prices, but all in multiyear contracts, so if i wanted to, i could find you a price on over $200 million also excluding the R&D cost. It seems someone looked for the lowest prce in the USAF budget estimates and picked it, why? Are you not aware the average price of an F-22 is around $185 million? Or do you just pick $135 here on the wiki fanpage to make the F-22 look better?

you want sources?

Congressional reseach service (CRS) for Congress on June 12, 2007, page 7:

"The F-22A's average procurement unit cost is estimated at approximately $185.4 million per aircraft"

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL31673.pdf

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) before the Subcommittee on AirLand Committee on Armed Services United States Senate on July 25, 2006, page 2:

"However, because the F-22A has turned out to be much more expensive than other fighter aircraft— procuring 182 aircraft will cost an average of $185 million per plane"

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/74xx/doc7424/07-25-F-22.pdf

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) before Subcommittee on Defense, House of Representatives June 20, 2006, page 5:

"In other words, the unit procurement costs increase from $166 million per aircraft to $183 million per aircraft for the proposed multiyear contract."

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06455r.pdf

Congress says $185 million is the average price for the F-22, but F-22 fans here on wiki says 135, based on budget estimates picked for one year out of a multi year contract Q.E.D.       --Financialmodel (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Also i find it interesting that the program unit acquisition cost (PUAC) for the F-22 (including reseach cost) is more than $350 million for each aircraft, but off course this is not mentioned either here on the F-22 WIKI fanpage. --Financialmodel (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look like someone picked a random year to me: we happened to be living in 2007 and we will be living in it for a few more weeks or so. If you want a calm and rational discussion, calling editors here F-22 fans with an agenda is not exactly a great start.EIFY (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

- If you refuse to list the average price, you should at least list all the different prices paid in the different years for different quantities, so they can see what game you play here. Agenda or just plain stupid, i dunno, but i do know the listed price in this article is not the average price of the F-22. Instead its a cherry picked price from budget estimates over several years.... --Financialmodel (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Calling editors "just plain stupid" is no way to start a calm discussion either. Be careful of WP:CIVIL; too many more comments like that and you'll likely be disciplined. Parsecboy (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is WP:Aircraft project policy to list flyaway or marginal cost for military aircraft's per unit cost ($137.7M for 2007).  The total program cost IS listed in the infobox and stated in the text.  So there's no valid argument for hiding anything.  -Fnlayson (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Its part of a multi year contract, if the average price of the F-22 is 185, and lets the the USAF needs two F-22's spread over 2 years, you could pay $185 million for one F-22 each year, or you could pay $369 million for one F-22 the first year and $1 million the next year, it wont matter, since the average price is still 185 (leaving out NPV calculation). The problem first exist when socalled moods here on WIKI start to use the $1 million dollar (paid in year two) as pricetag for the F-22, based on budget estimates from USAF.

Using the average unit procurement costs as U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and Congressional reseach service (CRS) will prevent manipulation/mistakes as here on wiki. So in short, either you should show all the different prices for each year and each quantity, or you should use the average cost as US Congress does. What WIKI does it a mistake, whether made on purpose or with intent, I cant say, but readers should not trust what they read in this F-22 article.--Financialmodel (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Infobox lists the flyaway cost of $137.7M and the total program cost of $62B per WP:Air/PC guidelines. The article goes on to state these costs and lists two average unit costs of over $330M.  The decrease in number from 750 to 183 is also covered (see Procurement section).  No cost info is being hidden. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Allow me to include the average "UPC" (unit procurement costs) and "PUAC" (program unit acquisition cost) also, as stated by the US Goverment accountaibility office (GAO), Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Congressional reseach service (CRS), it's no secret USAF have always been in the buttom price range. It can only improve the facts in this article, since picking prices for different years in a multi-year contract makes no sence. E.g. look at the pricetag in the USAF budget estimates for the first 92 F-22's bought, look at how many active F-22's this article claim there is, and now look at the price you have picked for a quantity of 21 f-22's in a specific year, it makes no sence. I see it as cherrypicking, but i dont plan to start a longer discussion as long as you also include the average UPC and PAUC as descriped by GAO, CBO and CRS. Read the linked sources if you doubt the sources provided. --Financialmodel (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not any one person's call. It's WP:Air policy to list flyaway cost for mil aircraft.  Putting the ave. unit cost doesn't add any information not covered by Total Program cost. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Here we go again. Why do you insist on adding irrelevant information to entries? There is a very good reason to only list unit flyaway cost and total program cost. They can be applied to all military aircraft no matter origin irregardless of accounting practices. By giging those two costs you can also gauge how the size of the production run affects overall out of pocket expenses. Lastly, surely you must agree that when using these prices the most current data should be used. Imagine what would happen if we did not. given the very good chance that the USAF will wind up buying close to 400 F-22s we could use the projected unit cost for a 24 plane production run in 2013 and come up with a flyaway cost less than $100mil. Surely you would not want that.Downtrip (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your cost are cherry picked, I suggested average Fly away cost, but you continue this F-22 fanpage bias, and its Downtrip and Fnlayson again - Again you continue to play your game with hiding criticism. I was willing to let you keep your biased flyway price, if you had added the other numbers also, so readers can see your modus operandi. Government use UPC, so avoid such manipulation by producers as you pull here here with Fly away cost. Did you learn such manipulation at your job in the US aerospace industry, Fnlayson? Here is what you have done - F-22 bias, fanpage manipulation

You have 91 active F-22's stated in article, first 92 F-22's are bought at 168 million USA, next 21 F-22 are bought at 135 million USD, and next 21 F-21 are bought at 137 million USD. OF all the 91 active F-22's the pricetag is 168 million USD, but you F_22 fans want to make it look cheaper, and since 91 are bought at 168, and then prices are lowered, because its always best to get a large amount up front, read NPV. You refuse to use average because 92 F-22's at 168 million have a hig weitht, instead you use a pricetag for 21 F-22s, not even active yet, but which will make the Fly away cost for the F-22 seem cheaper, its part of a multiyear conctract, and this source is only budget estimates for the financial payment, not the cost of the fly away cost of the F-22 as such, do averages. F-22 bias, fanpage manipulation --Financialmodel (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

With your F-22 fanpage logic, you will put the cost of an F-22 at 0 USD in 2010.F-22 bias, fanpage manipulation--Financialmodel (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Should I remind you that the cost per unit will change accordingly due to material price change throughout time, inflation and technological advancement? If you logic is used, meaning average price, then the fun fact about planes that have been in production for a few decades, like the F-16 will be much cheaper than the current production price.  I think the logic used here needs to be clarified, and is obviously not perfect, but your average pricing is much more fan page like than using the newest price. MythSearchertalk 16:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Mythsearcher said: Should I remind you that the cost per unit will change accordingly due to material price change throughout time, inflation and technological advancement?

With inflation price increases, and as you can see this is not the case here, your source is a "budget" that show the different payments in a multiyear contract, and it has nothing to do with the cost of an F-22. Spin it as you want, the F-22's price sudently got cheaper from the payment of 168 million for the first 92 F-22's, to 135 million USD for the next 21 F-22's the next year. It's not "due to material price change throughout time" or "inflation", it's finance 101, you want as much money in as soon as possible, because the Net Present Value is bigger. Right now this article hide this. Article says 91 active F-22's, and we know the first 92 F-22's cost 168 million USD, and yet we use the pricetag from a much smaller quantity of 21, that is the payment for the delivery of raptor number 114 to 134. This is a cash flow budget, not a source of the f-22 fly away cost as such. --Financialmodel (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

We have a conflict, we should mark this page as such, and refer to an economics/business page on wiki, to solve this question. I dispute your use of numbers, and i question why you refuse to allow the adding of average procurement unit cost UPC, from Congressional reseach service (CRS), U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Congressional Budget Office (CBO)--Financialmodel (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The cost overruns of the F-22 project are huge, but is it mentioned? Read GAO to US Congress:

Summary:

'''Based on our review, in our opinion, the DOD has not demonstrated the need or value for making further investments in the F-22A program. The Air Force’s current stated “need” is for 381 F-22As to satisfy air-to-air missions and recently added requirements for more robust ground attack and intelligence-gathering capabilities. However, because of past cost overruns and current budget constraints, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) states that it can now afford only 183 F-22As. This leaves a 198-aircraft gap between the Air Force’s stated need and what is currently affordable'''

.....The USAF want to buy 381 F-22's, which they say is needed as a minimum, but because of the huge cost overruns of this project, they can only afford 183, leaving a 198-aircraft gap between the Air Force’s stated need and what is currently affordable, is this conflict presented in the article? No. Instead its presented in a way, that dosent discuss the huge cost overruns of this project, read "Procurement" section, that just run over the numbers as headlines. It dont mention the current conflict where less F-22's are bought than what USAF state is needed, and it dont state why. Instead the article goes on, to speak about the benefits of buying more F-22's eventhought its limit is cut, because it cost too much. The article tells about how cheap this can be done by using fly-away cost, which has nothing to do which the real price, Congress pays, which is why all sources to Congress use UPC, the numbers certain editors refuse to even mention here in the start of article. Read article:

"If the Air Force were to buy 100 more F-22s today, the cost of each one would be less than $117 million and would continue to drop with additional aircraft purchases "F-22 excels at establishing air dominance." USAF. + F-22 is not the most expensive aircraft"


 * In short, this article sounds almost like a marketing campain from USAF on the great benefits of more F-22's, and no mention on its the huge cost overruns that is to blame for the low numbers, and there is refusal to present the real cost paid by US Congress, average UPC.

And this is what critics tell you again and again, something not mentioned here either, read:

Senator John McCain, "McCAIN INTRODUCES THE DEFENSE ACQUISTION REFORM ACT OF 2007", May 22, 2007:

"As stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars we must assure the public that we are buying the best programs for our servicemen and women at the best price for the taxpayer. I have already highlighted critical weapon systems with key acquisition problems. If we continue to buy weapon systems in an ineffective and inefficient manner so that costs continue to go up or the deployment of the system is delayed, it will only hurt the soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine in the field.

"The reason for this is quite simple. First, it does not take an economics degree to understand that the higher that costs of a weapon system unexpectedly goes up, the fewer of them we can buy. A prime example is the F-22 Raptor. The original requirement was for 781 jet fighters, now we can only afford 183.

--Financialmodel (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) If you can get a source stating the price difference is because of the down-payment or whatever, use it as a reference and add it into the article.  If you cannot find a source for that, sorry, WP:OR states no original research.
 * 2) repeatedly submitting large amount of words in a really unoriganized manner is not going to help in your arguement, and is only hurting your own public image for the viewers, which will also make it harder to get your point to others.
 * 3) I hate the F-22 in general and think of it as a laugh in terms of military unit since its extremely high price, no matter averaged or not.  So I am not biased in anyway because of wanting to make it sound cheap.
 * 4) WP:CIVIL
 * 5) I believe that is all for now. MythSearchertalk 14:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "If you can get a source stating the price difference is because of the down-payment or whatever, use it as a reference and add it into the article. If you cannot find a source for that, sorry, WP:OR states no original research."

LOL, how stupid are you allowed to be? So you want me to find a soure saying the original research done here isnt correct. Ask any economist if there is a difference in unit cost and budget payments (here budgt estimates), and they will tell you there is. Here on wiki you somehow use budget estimates at evidence of the unit cost, which is true original research. Find a source that validates the numbers you picked out of the thin air. You picked certain payments from a multiyear contract with lowest price tag in 2007 to make the F-22 look cheap, none of you even bother to change the price of the F-22 to 2008 payments, since budget payments per unit is now higher. Its bias and should be seen by even a elementary schoolgrader, no economist use budgetpayments in single years from multiyear contracts, to state the unit price. You claim I argue for original research, but facts are you moods have made your own sources out of the thin air - just look at the written sources i gave 3 congress agencies. Now stop wasting my time making up shit, and correct this price to real numbers. If you want to continue your bias cherrypicking numbers in single years, at least pick 2008 numbers in you budget estimates. we have 91 active f-22's and the price of these are badly manipulated. I know why people refer to wiki as a shitty source, even whn confronted with bias here, sources are not corrected and all one can do is to repeat yourself.--Financialmodel (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A reminder that all interactions should be respectful, and on numerous occasions, other editors have advised you to be temperate in your reactions and more judicious in your choice of language.


 * A caution: if you wish to contribute to this project, there are standards of decorum and civility that must be maintained. FWIW, there are really only a few basic tenets that underline use of Wikipedia:
 * Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them;
 * Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations;
 * Stay cool when the editing gets hot;
 * Avoid edit wars and follow the three-revert rule;
 * Act in good faith;
 * Never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point;
 * Assume good faith on the part of others, and
 * Be open and welcoming. FWIW, since you have chosen to remove these comments from your talk page, they are reproduced here. Bzuk (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

F-22 Fully Operational, 12 dec 2007
Now you can call the F-22 operational, though some did it already 3 years ago, read :

"An advanced stealth fighter jet in development since the 1980s has been declared fully operational, nearly three years after the first F- 22A Raptor arrived at Langley Air Force Base.""US Air Force: Raptor Stealth Fighter Jet Fully Operational"

(added now to latest)--Financialmodel (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

RFC : Disputed cost and aversion to criticism
I disbute the cost used here, and the refusal to add additional information to specify what the quoted cost cover. The real price of the F-22. We need admins from Economics/business wiki pages to solve this issue.

Besides the general cost disbute, the moods on this article carry a bias, that refuse to add, fix the disputed material, and there seems to be an adversion about critics about this plane in general, which should be looked into as well. Read Criticism --Financialmodel (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Financialmodel (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * From reading several comments here, the F-22 fanpage mafia seem to include: Bzuk, BillCJ, Fnlayson, and Downtrip.

Modus operandi is to delete and add what this group wants, if others disagree they refer to concensus, and close all debate, since there will never be consensus unlees you agree with them. Complain and article is locked with their input, and again is refered to consensus. --Financialmodel (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How is an RFC link made to get economics/business expert to comment on this?? --Financialmodel (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ok that was one more link, to history, can this be corrected to economics/business ?--Financialmodel (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * RFCecon attempt --Financialmodel (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is disputed, and will continue to be such, until consensus have been reached, so stop removing the disputed tag again and again, until it has been discussed in details. I have provided lots of sources, but no commets are made. Read the topics of dispute and comment, but stop ignoring this. --Financialmodel (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed tag, removed, article locked, and dispute talk moved to buttom so noone even read it, nice work admins here on wiki. The bias is endless--Financialmodel (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny, the talkheader instructions and software + feature are biased too then. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Tendentious editing. From the Wikipedia guideline on tendentious editing, here are some of the characteristics of "issue" editors:
 * Repeatedly reverts the “vandalism” of others
 * Makes a constant repeating of the same argument over and over again, without persuading people.
 * Campaigns to "Right Great Wrongs!" Does this apply here? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

I would have to say so. Financialmodel has an axe to grind here and the other 2 articles in dispute. As stated elsewhere in this talk page, s/he has been posting essentially the same arguments over and over in wordy diatribes about how the editors here are in some sort of cabal aimed against any sort of criticism; this is hardly the case. There is criticism of the plane; it's just not in a section dedicated to criticism (which I believe is discouraged anyway; the relevant negative points should always go right after the positive points they dispute, not separated). IMHO, the cost issue is explained pretty clearly in the article; there isn't any hiding of costs, nor is there figure cherrypicking. The flyaway cost for the current contract is 137 million; that's a fact, and the most current fact, regardless of the average cost of the entire production run (which is, in fact, stated in the article as well). Parsecboy (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Outsider Comments: Upon reading this entire bloody talk page,(all I can say about the general tone is 'my god, you're all adults?  no way!')  I feel fairly obligated to interject a few observations here.
 * 1.) It appears that while Financialmodel is not operating in the best possible way, it also appears that his grasp of the English language is also less than complete, suggesting he's probably not a native speaker. There is some suggestion of bias on his part, but he does raise a somewhat valid point...once you translate it and get past the personal attacks.  Also, people blowing him off because of his poor English looks fairly bad from the outside.
 * 2.) Most of the editors responding to him seem to be missing what seems to be his primary point. He's been talking the entire time about the LISTBOX at the top right of the page, not the content of the article.  He feels, a bit strongly, that it's incomplete, and points out that given that the 'unit cost' appears to have been arbitrarily selected from a list of values, it's somewhat suspicious that the value selected was one of the lowest ones available from any kind of official source(though theoretically the most current).
 * 3.) 'Unit Cost' does, at first glance, sound like 'how much they cost each', whereas 'flyaway cost' is not even mentioned as well as being a sufficiently arcane term that the layman will probably not understand it without further reading. Requiring the reader to divide the program cost by the number of articles to get the actual total average price per unit is a bit much, especially as most readers will probably assume that the 'unit cost' is such a thing and not investigate further.
 * 4.) Financialmodel appears to be attempting to call for arbitration, which is getting shoved to the side and ignored. This appears to be because the other editors involved have concluded that because of his methods(in particular the conspiracy accusations and unwarranted personal attacks), that he is not worth listening to and cannot be making a valid point.
 * 5.) I absolutely agree with him that the listbox info does seem somewhat deceptive, and quite possibly not adequately described. 'Flyaway Cost' should probably be a separate entry from 'Unit Cost', as it appears that 'Flyaway cost' is not what the average reader is going to be expecting to be listed as the 'unit cost'.  By all means include it, but it does seem deceptive the way it's set up now.
 * In short, it doesn't look like anything halfway as malicious as what Financial is saying it is, but there is a bit of a problem. 'Current Flyaway Cost' is all well and great, but it's not what the average reader is probably going to be expecting to be given for 'unit cost'.  Perhaps 'Average unit cost' reflecting the program costs, and 'Current unit cost' reflecting the current flyaway costs?  or something similar, removing the 'do the math yourself' requirement from the reader, as well as adding information and transparency to the summary section of the article(which is, I might add, all most people are going to read). -Graptor 66.42.151.80 (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As one of the quasi-adults, let me put something else into context, this editor has been "campaigning" in three different articles, against the consensus views of other editors, to institute a POV that supports his contention that the Eurofighter Tyhoon is superior to other contemporary fighters. The "flyaway" costs are a canard that he has instituted on this page, on the 4th generation jet fighter page, he attempted to introduce comparative analysis based on unverifiable exercise reports while in the Eurofighter Typhoon article he introduced a copviol that was misquoted but again was a wholly unsupportable document based on hearsay. So, in short, your analysis does not take into consideration the disruptive tendentious editing pattern that was instilled. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
 * No, he's not operating in good faith, no he's not operating reasonably, yes it was initiated as a retalation... But that's all his problem, and will result in consequences if it continues.
 * And frankly, that's why you need the outsider viewpoint right now. You've gotten yourselves so riled up because of his methods, and it frankly looks like it's also partially because he's presenting a different viewpoint you don't agree with, that you're just discarding everything he says out of hand without even stopping to consider that he could possibly have a point.  We're supposed to be neutral and rational and I'm not seeing much of that here.
 * Quite simply, 'unit cost' and 'flyaway cost' are not the same thing, and it is not what the majority of the readers are going to be expecting. They're going to look and say 'oh so they cost 137 million each, so why are people talking like it was 200 million plus?' and close the article.  Regardless of what else he has done, that much is true and no amount of posturing about his bad faith attacks will make it any less true or relevant.
 * Finally, I have to add that stooping to his level in response to his attacks is not what wikipedia needs. We would all be better served if everyone involved in such disputes took a step back, examined what was actually being said, and considered it rationally and calmly.  If that had been done here a lot of nonsense from all parties could've been avoided very easily, and his 'attack' would've been pretty well staved off.  Ever heard the expression 'don't feed the troll'?  Well that's what happened here.  He trolled in response to stuff elsewhere, and rather than looking at it rationally and easily defusing it, it was escalated further to an absurd point.  It takes two to have an argument.  Better to make him look like the idiot he is by pulling the rug out from under him by operating in good faith even when he doesn't. -Graptor 66.42.151.80 (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite simply, 'unit cost' and 'flyaway cost' are not the same thing, and it is not what the majority of the readers are going to be expecting. They're going to look and say 'oh so they cost 137 million each, so why are people talking like it was 200 million plus?' and close the article.  Regardless of what else he has done, that much is true and no amount of posturing about his bad faith attacks will make it any less true or relevant.
 * Finally, I have to add that stooping to his level in response to his attacks is not what wikipedia needs. We would all be better served if everyone involved in such disputes took a step back, examined what was actually being said, and considered it rationally and calmly.  If that had been done here a lot of nonsense from all parties could've been avoided very easily, and his 'attack' would've been pretty well staved off.  Ever heard the expression 'don't feed the troll'?  Well that's what happened here.  He trolled in response to stuff elsewhere, and rather than looking at it rationally and easily defusing it, it was escalated further to an absurd point.  It takes two to have an argument.  Better to make him look like the idiot he is by pulling the rug out from under him by operating in good faith even when he doesn't. -Graptor 66.42.151.80 (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Finally, I have to add that stooping to his level in response to his attacks is not what wikipedia needs. We would all be better served if everyone involved in such disputes took a step back, examined what was actually being said, and considered it rationally and calmly.  If that had been done here a lot of nonsense from all parties could've been avoided very easily, and his 'attack' would've been pretty well staved off.  Ever heard the expression 'don't feed the troll'?  Well that's what happened here.  He trolled in response to stuff elsewhere, and rather than looking at it rationally and easily defusing it, it was escalated further to an absurd point.  It takes two to have an argument.  Better to make him look like the idiot he is by pulling the rug out from under him by operating in good faith even when he doesn't. -Graptor 66.42.151.80 (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Finally, I have to add that stooping to his level in response to his attacks is not what wikipedia needs. We would all be better served if everyone involved in such disputes took a step back, examined what was actually being said, and considered it rationally and calmly.  If that had been done here a lot of nonsense from all parties could've been avoided very easily, and his 'attack' would've been pretty well staved off.  Ever heard the expression 'don't feed the troll'?  Well that's what happened here.  He trolled in response to stuff elsewhere, and rather than looking at it rationally and easily defusing it, it was escalated further to an absurd point.  It takes two to have an argument.  Better to make him look like the idiot he is by pulling the rug out from under him by operating in good faith even when he doesn't. -Graptor 66.42.151.80 (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Flyaway cost is not some useless thing. It is what the aircraft would cost now for a new order.  All the discussion here has stemmed from a fixation on one number in the Infobox to try and sum up everything.  And that's just not realistic. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, never said it was useless or should be removed. Maybe renamed to be more clear, as most people are going to expect 'Unit Cost' to be the cost per unit for all that have been purchased, not 'what it would cost to buy more right now'.  Both are relevant, both should be included, and both clearly labeled so that there's no possible confusion.  Right now there is some potential confusion with the way it's labeled, that one bad faith editor used as ammunition for an attack.  -Graptor 66.42.151.80 (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also note that even though the editor in question has given me Mafia status, I had very little to do with content editing on this article, rather as any editor that has encountered me can attest, I am of the anal retentative school who frets and picks over periods and commas. Where other editors are concerned with specific content, I will certainly support them, but my main issues in this case were related to the lack of decorum and progressively ill-tempered debate that was fostered. I specifically do not like to feed trolls, having had my fill of them. (There I go mixing metaphors, but regardless, the meaning is probably clear.) FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC).


 * The flyaway cost is the recommended unit cost according to WikiProject Aircraft/page content as discussed in further detail in User:Askari Mark/Understanding aircraft unit costs. As such it should be whats quoted in all articles for which the information is available - to allow a easier like-for-like comparision.  If a different cost was used for different articles, then that would of couse open up a huge can of worms, and likely lead to much bigger edit wars than we've gt at the moment.  While it may be better to use a better title - this is part of the infobox template and changing it may be problematical - perhaps the fact that it is flyaway cost could be explained as a footnote?Nigel Ish (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * J, That's a good idea and can be incorporated either in the form of an "invisible" or as a footnote (or expanded note, or asterix note) so that everyone can see it. I don't see the need for it in every article but it certainly could apply here. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Yes, as I said, there's a very good rationale for including it, and it is indeed useful information. Some clarification of what the number refers to wouldn't hurt a bit, and would make things much more clear for the average reader that isn't going to go digging into talk pages and such to find out the details of it.  I personally tend to think that including BOTH the Flyaway and Average Per Unit cost over the lifetime of the program in the infobox is the best way to go, but it's a bit harder to accomplish than just adding an explanatory footnote.  The two figures are different, but both relevant in different contexts.  Flyaway cost references how much an individual unit costs to procure at the moment, whereas average unit cost would be the average cost per plane of the entire program.  The former is more relevant to additional procurement, while the latter is more relevant to the controversy about the cost of the program.  Clarifying with a footnote of some kind is an excellent temporary solution however. :)
 * Trick here is that most users reading this article that have heard about all the controversies about how expensive it is are going to be looking for cost information, and there's a fair chance they're going to skim most of the article, if they even bother to so much as glance at anything outside the infobox and the summary. And a lot of them are going to be expecting the development, manufacturing, testing costs etc. to be included.  As I said, the problem isn't so much what figure we're using, as that it's labeled unclearly and takes more effort to find out what it is than most readers are going to put in to it.  The net result of which is that anyone that just glances at it comes away with the incomplete although correct impression that the plane is cheaper than all the reps in congress fussing about it let on.
 * Another problem with that one, is that if someone reads in the paper that the per unit cost is $185 million US, and sees here that it's $137 million US, and doesn't realize the two figures are different, there is the chance they could conclude the figure here is wrong. If they're bold they'll try to change it(which from some of the comments and the page protection sounds like it may have occurred here), if they're not they'll probably just conclude that it's 'yet another example of wikipedia being inaccurate'.  Which is part of why I tend to prefer more information, clearly labeled, rather than less.  Especially where it prevents confusion or inaccurate impressions. -Graptor 66.42.151.80 (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with the consensus of above. Adding a footnote with a simple explanation seems to be the ideal solution...can we get the page unlocked now? — BQZip01 —  talk 03:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a little more patience please - I'm seeking some input from the other side about this compromise --Rlandmann (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am glad that Graptor is attempting to introduce some clear-headed debate into this folderol. However, I’m afraid he and others have misconstrued “flyaway cost” and “unit cost” as separate things; this isn’t necessarily.  Bzuk was kind enough to post a link to my essay explaining the confusing hodgepodge of costs quoted for military aircraft; since I wrote it to help editors avoid such fracases as these, I would encourage everybody involved to read it.  As I pointed out there, a “unit” cost is simply the indicated type of cost divided by the number of aircraft being paid for (i.e., the "per airplane" cost). In some cases, the reported cost is normally a unit cost; e.g., “flyaway cost” (FAC) and “unit flyaway cost” (UFAC) are the same thing, so use of the term “unit” is actually rather superfluous.  On the other hand, some types of costs need that clarification.  “Program cost” (or “procurement cost” or “production cost”) is usually taken to be the total program cost – unless it is specified as a “unit program cost” (UPC).


 * My advice has been – and WP:AIR prescribes – the use of FAC and/or UPC costs for infoboxes. Why?  Because they’re the only kinds of costs that are usually readily available or calculable for almost all aircraft and they’re in line with what the average reader thinks of as “the airplane’s” rough cost.  Should we list every possible kind of cost in the infobox?  No.  It’s only supposed to provide highlights and comparable information across all aircraft.  If “program acquisition costs” (PAC) were widely available, then it would make sense to include them as well.  However, pretty much only the USA publishes such costs and not even for all of its aircraft.  They are appropriate, though, for inclusion in the main text, where their significance can be explained to the general reader.  Is there a good reason to not include PAC in the infobox?  Yes, there is.  It is because people who have an inimical POV to push like to (mis)use it for their own political agenda, as I noted in my essay.  Since you can’t explain it in an infobox, it really shouldn’t be there.  If anything, having an estimated total program cost is fine ... but just how much “stuff” needs to be in an infobox?  I hope this helps to better clarify the matter for the editors at debate here.  Askari Mark (Talk) 02:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
Requests for checkuser/Case/Wikzilla For all concerned checkuser found that  is almost certainly a sockpuppet of the Indef blocked user. additionally it was found he routinely uses anon IP addresses for 3RR evasion and sockpuppetry.Freepsbane (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Downtrip, please do not remove notices such as this. Yes, I've seen checkuser give false positives, but those instances are fairly rare. You can dispute the findings, but in cases like this, which appear to be fairly clear-cut (at least in regards to you and the IPs listed at the report), you might have trouble. Parsecboy (talk) 05:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Downtrip, please do not consider this note as vandalism. There was a Requests for checkuser but that does not mean a definitive judgement.


 * This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines; Do not respond to personal attacks nor become involved in them, however please note the following:


 * I will move these tags to the talk page headers afterwards. FWIW, Dwntrip, things will get resolved, admins have been notified. {:¬∆) Bzuk (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC).