Talk:Lockheed YF-22

Photos

There are some good PD iamges at Defense Imagery.mil, including a couple of in-flight shots. - BilCat (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Lockheed YF-22/GA1

Supercruise speed

The Mach 1.58 supercruise speed is given by multiple sources, including Aronstein's book. Also, I don't see why we need to round to one decimal place. The F-22's supercruise speed is also given in two decimal places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.228.145.163 (talk) 08:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a source. Now wasn't that easy? - BilCat (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Why "Y"?

The "YF" designation should be explained. The 'F' is obvious (Fighter), but the 'Y' is not. I asked an AF Col. what the 'Y' meant, and he said that it simply means "one step beyond 'X'" (experimental). Of course, that would not qualify as a proper WP source. Can somebody find a source and clarify this in the article?  —Thanks in advance, E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• The Y means prototype per 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system#Status prefix. This effectively means a pre-production aircraft and is one step beyond experimental (X) as the Colonel stated. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Design evolution images

The F-22 design evolution articles on Code One Magazine (part 1 and part 2) has a wealth of images, especially of the proposals from Lockheed, Boeing, and General Dynamics during the RFI, the initial submissions for the RFP, and the design evolution into the YF-22 and then into the F-22. However, I couldn't find whether or not these images are free to use, and as such, is there a way to post low-resolution non-free images in the article? It would greatly help visualize the descriptions in this article.

Steve7c8 (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I posted downscaled thumbnail versions of the images for illustrative purposes. Steve7c8 (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Fnlayson @ZLEA @Zaereth Do you know what the process of using non-free images are? I've seen articles use them (typically media articles) and typically they're downscaled thumbnails without any higher resolution, but I'm not familiar with the process for using them. If that's not possible then a lot of images here will have to be removed until I can get express permission from Lockheed or if they're uploaded on something like DVIDS. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• This should be covered at WP:NFC, which gives info without overdoing it. An NFC image has to be lower resolution and only be used in 1 article, if other valid alternatives are not available. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Steve7c8 The guideline for using non-free images in an article can be found at WP:FAIRUSE. I don't have too much experience working with non-free images, so I don't know that I would be of much help. I will say that the article does not list the original sources or copyright holders of the images, so that would complicate the "Identification of the source of the original copyrighted material" part of WP:FAIRUSE. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@ZLEA the Wikimedia page for these images do have the source of the material listed. Do they need to be given in the caption as well in for "fair use"? Steve7c8 (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm probably not the best person to guide you through the fair use process. You might try the WP:Village pump, where you are likely to find users with more experience with fair use. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

GA reassessment

Lockheed YF-22

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No suggestion that the article doesn't meet the GA criteria; GAR is not peer review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I have added considerable amount of design history information compiled from several sources to give a summary of how the design came to be. The article has nearly doubled in size, so I would like other editors to review my work to make sure it's still up to standards. Steve7c8 (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Steve7c8, marking my spot here, will post comments soon. Matarisvan (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A-class assessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article promoted by Matarisvan (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Lockheed YF-22

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Steve7c8 (talk)

Lockheed YF-22 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have added considerable amount of design history information compiled from several sources to give a summary of how the design came to be. I believe this article can be considered for A-class. Steve7c8 (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review - pass

• GlobalSecurity.org is not considered a reliable source (WP:GLOBALSECURITY)
• The details in the Notes section require references
• Mullin (1992) is not used
• fn 53 and 58 say "William" instead of "Williams"
• Hehs, Mullin, Williams: location?
• I am not sure what issue Flight International (1990) refers to.
• fn 37, 45, 55: page numbers?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• That Global Security image is a direct scan from the print version of the Code One Magazine article written by Eric Hehs, I'll adjust the citation accordingly.
• I've added references in the second, more detailed note.
• I'll move that to additional reading, but it's sort of a shorter summary that Mullin would expand his 2012 writing on.
• Fixed.
• Code One Magazine is for Hehs is based in Fort Worth, Texas. Mullin's publication is by USAFA affiliated Mitchell Aerospace Institute based in Arlington, VA. Williams' book publisher is based in Norwalk, CT or London depending on distribution.
• Those are listed again under bibliography with the full citation, I've moved it to references as the more appropriate section.
• Page numbers have been added for the first two, the last one doesn't have a page number.

Steve7c8 (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Hawkeye7, is the source review a pass now or not after Steve7c8's changes? Matarisvan (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. All good now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• File:YF-22A Advanced Technology Fighter.jpg, File:Two Lockheed-Boeing-General Dynamics YF-22s.jpg, File:YF-22 and YF-23.jpg, File:F-22 Raptor resumes flight testing - 030328-F-0000C-001.jpg, File:Lockheed-Boeing-General Dynamics YF-22 USAF.jpg - USAF images - PD in the United States - okay
• File:An air-to-air overhead view of the YF-22 advanced tactical fighter aircraft during a test flight DF-ST-92-09938.jpg - DOD image - PD in the United States - okay
• File:F-22 RFI.jpg - USAF image - a source would be nice
• File:Lockheed Faceted ATF.jpg, File:Lockheed Model 090P 300x172.jpg, File:Lockheed Boeing General Dynamics DemVal Proposal 300x359.jpg, File:F-22 design evolution 595 to 645 200x592.png, File:NATF-22 305x170.jpg - no-free image - has Fair Use rationale - okay
• File:YF-22 Lightning II "Rzuty" outline drawing.png - Wikipedian-generated image - PD - okay

All images have appropriate licences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi Steve7c8, saving a spot, will add comments soon. Also, if you could wikimail me the two sources required for the YF-23 article, that would be great. Matarisvan (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Matarisvan, do you still intend on reviewing this article for A-class? Steve7c8 (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Steve7c8, my comments:

• "The ATF would take advantage of the new technologies in fighter design on the horizon": Might "The ATF would take advantage of the new technologies in fighter design" be better? "On the horizon" seems too embellishing.
• Link to air superiority fighter?
• Link to delta wings on first mention instead of second?
• Add a ref for notes 3 and 4?
• Link to Pratt & Whitney, General Electric and General Dynamics?
• Link to side looking airborne radar?
• "is a prototype air vehicle": "was" instead of "is"?
• "are spaced away from": "were" instead of "are"?
• "is applied to the airframe shape": "was" instead of "is"?
• "due to escalating cost and the design": Might "due to escalating cost and because the design" be better?
• Link to angle of attack on first mention instead of second?
• Link to radome?
• Add Federation of American Scientists as the website for ref #29?
• Consider removing ref #39, since no links for it are available?
• Add [https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&issn=08890404&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA9371744&sid=googleScholar&linkaccess=abs] as the link for ref #47?
• Add [https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1991/04/24/lockheed-wins-huge-jet-contract/89170285-d2c6-4c36-bb23-74dfae672626/] as the link for ref #57 along with its archive URL?
• Add [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269064311_F-22_control_law_development_and_flying_qualities] as the URL for ref #62 along with the DOI listed there?
• Add archive URLs for refs #63 and #64?
• Link to Barton Gellman in ref #57?
• Link to Jeffrey K. Harris in ref #62?
• Add archive URLs for Hehs 1998, Mullin 2012, Mullin 2019?

Matarisvan (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I've incorporated most of the changes and suggestions. Also, Federation of American Scientists wasn't the original publisher of the F-22 test pilot report, it was originally a paper presented at a Society of Experimental Test Pilots conference, and the FAS link is where it can be found. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Not a problem. Adding my support. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Schierbecker

Hiking the AT. Connection may be sporadic. Apologies for any curtness or disorganization of replies.

• Lede should state that Lockheed was the prime.
• US or U.S.? Consistency needed.
• The distinction between WP:GENREF and "Additional sources" is not usually seen on well-developed articles. Might be better to merge the Bibliography and Additional sources.
• Personally my eyes tend to glaze over when an article contains too many dates. Maybe only mention the exact date if its important (and it's going to be on the test) Also does Halloween need to wikilinked?
• Would prefer less passive voice (e.g. not the Lockheed team was announced by Secretary of the Air Force Donald Rice as the winner of the ATF competition.)
• delta wings and pilot-induced oscillation are wikilinked only on the second mention. wl "FY", "S-duct", "thrust-vectoring". YF119 and YF120 overlinked. Image captions could stand to have more wls. It isn't considered overlooking.
• Advise adding brief in-text description of the Packard Commission (e.g. that it was a commission of president Reagan.).
• "SR-71-like" needs an en dash per MOS:SUFFIXDASH
• Re: the accident: were any design issues identified and corrected as a result?
• Pratt & Whitney and General Electric had earlier been awarded contracts to develop the propulsion systems with the designations YF119 and YF120 Respectively? These engines were requirements for the selected aircraft? Furnished as government-furnished equipment? How and when was it determined to go forward with the YF119?
• Give nationality of SR-71/YF-12. Lockheed as designer seems relevant especially given that they proposed something like it.
• The top four proposals, later reduced to two, would proceed with Dem/Val. They selected four, then down selected to two? Who were the four? Or they had plans to select four contenders, but decided to only choose two?
• Because the requirement for flying prototypes was a late addition due to political pressure, awkward. consider rephrasing.
• The seven bids were submitted in July 1986. Were Lockheed, Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrop, and McDonnell Douglas the only teams that submitted proposals? Which teams submitted more than one proposal? Lockheed, Boeing and General Dynamics each submitted a proposal or proposals? Article makes it sound like Lockheed was the only contractor that responded during the concept development. True? Mention that Lockheed developed the F-117.
• Sherman Mullin would credit the Lockheed proposal's system engineering volume for the top rank. confused about what this means. Mullin says Lockheed got the contract for its manufacturing capabilities? Implying Northrop did not?
• Having performed poorly during ATF concept exploration while also losing the ATB to Northrop who had a curved surface design, meaning more clear if this is split in two sentences.
• Furthermore, the U.S. Navy under Congressional pressure Try: "Furthermore, under Congressional pressure, the U.S. Navy".
• Were there any differences in the stealth coating between the YF-22 and F-22?
• However, much of the scrutiny fell on Lockheed's Configuration 090P Scrutiny from whom?

Schierbecker (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Added statement that Lockheed is prime contractor
• Standardized on "U.S."
• As far as having two sections for generic references and additional sources, I think the latter is for works that's not directly cited in the body, but are useful further reading.
• I'll the importance of specific dates for other editors to judge, I personally don't think it's too cumbersome and having month and year is pretty generic, I feel.
• For PAV-2 crash, the issue is that the flight control system was immature and not ready for low-altitude demonstration flights. The YF-22s never flew after that and the F-22 air vehicle is also markedly different.
• The ATF engine effort was a separate parallel effort that pre-dated the ATF itself by a few years, and during Del/Val it was brought under the control of the ATF SPO. The ATF engine was also being competed which is why there were two YF-22s and YF-23s, one for each engine option. The winner of the engine competition would be announced alongside the ATF winner.
• The ATF SPO had originally planned to select 4 companies as finalists for Dem/Val, but this was judged too expensive and unnecessary, so they reduced it to two.
• I added the seven bidding companies as a note.
• System engineering, which involves your plans for conducting trade studies and requirements reviews, was an area that not many companies focused on at the time, but Lockheed did. It was only after being selected that the companies found out how much the ATF SPO valued system engineering plans in their proposals.
• Scrutiny on Configuration 090P from the design team.

Steve7c8 (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• The ATF request for information (RFI) was sent out to the aerospace industry Passive voice. "The [SERVICE BRANCH] published the ATF RfI..." would be more appropriate.
• Furthermore, the U.S. Navy under Congressional pressure eventually announced that it would use a derivative of the ATF winner to replace its F-14 Tomcat as the Navy Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF) and called for the procurement of 546 aircraft. I take it that the Navy was reluctant to join the Air Force program? This could be more clear.
• "red-teamed" as a verb is confusing. Consider ways to rephrase. Alton D. Slay led the red team for Lockheed or the government? Not sure what "Systems engineering volume" means.
• stealth requirements were drastically increased passive voice again.
• [CITY] comma [STATE] comma.
• TBD. 173.243.167.206 (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Fixed.
  • Yes, the Navy was somewhat reluctant to join NATF due to their experience with the TFX (F-111B) in the 1960s.
  • Alton D. Slay served as an independent consultant to "red-team", or pick holes, the proposal, which contains many volumes, including one for the systems engineering plan.
  • Fixed.

  Steve7c8 (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Schierbecker, hope you're ok on the AT what with the ongoing hurricane. Whenever you're free and well, could you add any other comments you may have or your vote? Matarisvan (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe I addressed most of her feedback and incorporated some of the suggestions. That said (and I accidentally left this out in my earlier reply), for some of her points where she asked for additional context or clarification, I feel those fit better in the Advanced Tactical Fighter article where I did expand on them. Steve7c8 (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Steve7c8, I think you should wait for another reviewer since we need 3 supports for promotion and we have 2 now. Schierbecker might not be able to comment for some time since she is in Appalachia which was hit hard this hurricane season, hopefully she is ok and is in all likelihood not getting internet service. Matarisvan (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I am in Vermont and safe. I appreciate the concern. :) In a bit of a tricky situation internet-wise. I'll be able to make short comments and see this review through though. More comments tomorrow.Schierbecker (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Schierbecker, we're still waiting on your comments, but there's no rush if the adverse weather hasn't subsided. Matarisvan (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

• Can we have a footnote for note 1? Also: since it is in the lead, it ought to be in the body somewhere
• "missileer" normally refers to a missile crew. I haven't seen it used this way before. Is it correct?
• "Lockheed's design team, lead by Bart Osborne under its Skunk Works division" -> "lead" should be "led". Also: "under" is awkward here; suggest "of" or "from"
• Link "supercruise", "thrust", "faceting", 'aerial refueling", "fleet air defense", "maiden flight", "radome"
• "radar range testing at Helendale, California" -> Parenthetical comma after "California".
• "resulting in engine thrust increasing from 30,000 lbf (133 kN) to 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class" -> Delete "class"?
• "Due to Congressional pressure, the U.S. Navy joined the ATF program initially as an observer and in 1988 announced that it would procure a variant/derivative of the winning design as the NATF to replace the F-14." Hasn't this already been mentioned? Suggest moving "Furthermore, the U.S. Navy under Congressional pressure eventually announced that it would use a derivative of the ATF winner to replace its F-14 Tomcat as the Navy Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF) and called for the procurement of 546 aircraft.[8]" down here. Also: what was the reason/rationale for this Congressional pressure?
• "The second YF-22A (PAV-2, s/n 87-0701, N22YX) with the P&W YF119 made its maiden flight on 30 October at the hands of pilot Tom Morgenfeld." -> Suggest "chief test pilot Thomas A. Morgenfeld"
• "the Lockheed design was also seen as more adaptable to the Navy's Navalized Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF)" -> "NATF" has already been introduced above, albeit with a different definition. Resolve this.

Looks very good. Only a few issues to resolve. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I've incorporated most of the changes and suggestions. A few notes:

• I don't think the definition of faceting as defined in the main article is the same as for the design method for stealth aircraft.
• I'm not sure where to incorporate note 1 in the body, since it occurred well well into EMD, while this article primarily covers the Dem/Val phase.
• Missileer was how Lockheed described the CL-2016, per Hehs 1998.

Steve7c8 (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

It seems Schierbecker is having ongoing issues, so I will step in to help get this over the line. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• "similarly high operating speed and altitude as a missileer." A missileer is a person.
• "the design never progressed beyond Dem/Val for full-scale development". Should "for" be 'to'?
• "In 1991, it was anticipated that 650 production F-22s would be procured." This may fit more naturally into the following paragraph.
• What are "the F-22 flight control laws"?
• "flight performance predictions against which their prototypes would be evaluated against". It would be nice to avoid using "against" twice.

And that is all I have. The article seems to be in great shape. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Missileer was how Lockheed described its CL-2016 design, which is why I kept the word in here.

A reader cannot be expected to understand the usage, so it should be replaced or defined in line.

• Agree, I'll change it to "to".
• I'm ambivalent about it either way, so I'm leaving it as is for now.
• "Flight control laws" (or Claw as we engineers sometimes call it) refers to the laws governing how control inputs translate into aircraft movements like pitch, roll, etc.

A reader cannot be expected to understand this from the text. So per Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable and Wikipedia is not a scientific journal it should be replaced with non-specialist language.

• Removed the second instance of "against", doing the same for the YF-23 article.

Steve7c8 (talk) 03:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Two come backs above. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• I can change it to "missile platform (or "missileer" per Lockheed)".

'missile platform' is great.

• Would wiki-linking "flight control laws" to flight control modes help?

Not really. I just don't see how a non-expert is going to extract any meaning from "The dedicated airbrake was eliminated in favor of feathering control surfaces using the control laws" (or 'modes'). And MOS:NOFORCELINK has "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." You explained it pretty well to me above, so it seems doable. Or just delete "using the control laws".

As a side note, would you be able to help close out the YF-23 FA reassessment as well? That one has been sitting for a while, waiting for additional member approval. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Down to one point. I'll have a look at it, but it may not be soon. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

For the last point, would a footnote help? Steve7c8 (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Not in my opinion. Footnotes are for nice-to-have, semi-superfluous points; not for information you need to read to understand the article. Nor for information you need to have in order to comply with policy. You don't like the delete three words option then? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Not a fan, because I feel like it would remove important information. Is this acceptable? "In light of this mishap, the F-22 flight control laws, the algorithms governing how control inputs translate into aircraft motions and reactions, took better account of non-linear effects of control surface rate/position saturation and PIO triggering mechanisms." Steve7c8 (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that would work if you threw in a 'were changed to' or 'were altered to' or 'were reconfigured to' or similar. (After "motions and reactions,".) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Done, thank you. Steve7c8 (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

This review now has three supports, and has passed source and image reviews. Promoted today, 30 November. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Steve7c8 (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

FA-class nomination

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:37 18 January 2026 FACBot (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2026 (UTC).

---

Lockheed YF-22

Nominator(s): Steve7c8 (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

This article is about the Lockheed YF-22, a technology demonstrator prototype aircraft for the U.S. Air Force's Advanced Tactical Fighter demonstration/validation program. The design team of Lockheed, Boeing, and General Dynamics competed against the rival Northrop and McDonnell Douglas team which flew the Northrop YF-23. The Lockheed team won the competition, and the YF-22 design would evolve into the F-22, which currently serves as the premier air superiority fighter of the U.S. Air Force and a cornerstone of its tactical airpower. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith

• fighter with outstanding kinematic performance I know what you mean by "kinematic performance", but I suspect most of our readers won't, so that deserves a short explanation.
• places strong emphasis on stealth, maneuver, ... maneuverability?
• to a number of aircraft manufacturing teams Why "teams". Would the simpler "aircraft manufacturers" work?
  • Oh, I see you talk about teams later. You should at give an abbreviated version of the explanation here.
• 750 ATFs at a unit flyaway cost You should explain what "flyaway cost" means. How does it differ from just plain "cost"?
• Having performed poorly during ATF concept exploration while also losing the ATB to Northrop who had a curved surface design, Lockheed abandoned faceting in 1984 and began incorporating curved shapes and surfaces This is a little hard to parse. Maybe "Lockheed's initial faceted designs performed poorly during initial ATF concepts exploration, loosing to Northrop. Lockheed then adopted ..."
• The ATF RFP would see some alterations after its first release; the SPO drastically increased all-aspect stealth requirements in December 1985 after discussions with Lockheed and Northrop regarding their experiences with the Have Blue/F-117 and ATB/B-2, and the requirement for flying technology demonstrator prototypes was added in May 1986 due to recommendations from the Packard Commission, a federal commission by President Ronald Reagan to study Department of Defense procurement practices. That's a heck of a long sentence. I could easily be three.
• Sherman Mullin would credit the Lockheed's top rank to their proposal's system engineering volume Explain what "system engineering volume" means.
• Work would be divided roughly equally among the team I think either "across the team" or "among the team members" works better.
• V-tail empennage surfaces (deemed sufficient due to the high operating speed) I think what you're getting at here is that a lower flight speed would have required traditional horizontal and vertical surfaces because they give greater stability? But you should explain that to the reader.
• palletized internal weapons explain what "palletized" means?
• a large single vertical tail as the only empennage surface which compromised all-aspect stealth this parses oddly. It sounds like it's the only empennage surface which compromised stealth.
• systems engineering rather than a point design What is a "point design". How does it differ from "systems engineering"?
• pole testing at radar ranges What is "pole testing"?
• Ultimately, the 50,000-lb takeoff weight still proved to be unachievable I think you want "desired 50,000-lb", or "required 50,000-lb"
• resulting in engine thrust increasing "... the required engine thrust increasing"
• The design retained the thrust vectoring nozzles and four tails "... four tail surfaces"

That takes me to the end of Development. I'll pick up with Design another time RoySmith (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

• The YF-22 was a prototype air vehicle intended to demonstrate the viability of the ATF air vehicle and propulsion design eliminate repetition of "air vehicle"
• shoulder-mounted inlets explain what these are for our non-expert readers.
• all moving horizontal stabilizers explain this too.
• All major edges were aligned at a common set of angles for stealth This needs explaining. I know a bit about aircraft design and radar, but I'm at a loss for why this is true; most of our readers will have no clue.
• whereas the YF-23 had two tail surfaces, the YF-22 had four, which made it more maneuverable than its counterpart it's not clear which of these is "it" and which is "its counterpart"
• area rule was applied to the airframe shape "the area rule", perhaps?
• shaping was immature and not quite refined is there a useful distinction between "immature" and "not quite refined"?
• the landing gears and arresting hook were strengthened for aircraft carrier landings this is confusing. Did the USAF version also have an arresting hook, but the navy needes a stronger one?
• The dedicated airbrake was eliminated in favor of feathering control surfaces using the control laws There's a lot here a non-expert reader will need explained. Feathering? Control laws? How does all this apply to air brakes?
• The test pilot, Tom Morgenfeld, escaped without injury did he eject?

That does it for a full read-through. For the most part, this is well written and mostly just needs a few things explained better for WP:MTAU. RoySmith (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I've addressed most of these, thank you. Steve7c8 (talk) 12:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This nomination has been open for three weeks and has attracted limited comment. Unless that changes substantially in the next few days, it is liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:37, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Roger, will work to get more evaluators and reviewers. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Source review

Planting this. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

HF

I know little of aviation but am in the process of reading this to start a review. Hog Farm _Talk 22:35, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Hog Farm, Thanks. You just beat the deadline by literally one minute. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

• " The ATF would take advantage of the new technologies in fighter design on the horizon including composite materials, lightweight alloys, advanced avionics and flight-control systems, more powerful propulsion systems and stealth technology" - what is "on the horizon" intended to mean here? Is this an idiomatic usage to mean that these new technologies were almost available? The problem with using idiomatic language in a heavily technical article (especially in a field where "horizon" can have technical meanings) is that it makes the writing even less comprehensible to most readers
• "engines mounted in nacelles spaced away" - is there a reason why nacelle isn't linked here?
• " mission radius was expected to be 500 nautical miles (580 mi; 930 km) mixed subsonic/supersonic or 700–800 nautical miles (806–921 mi; 1,300–1,480 km) subsonic" - Goodall p. 92 notes that the 800 nmi range would have allowed the fighters to strike Central European targets from bases in the UK. Is this consistent with what is stated in the other sources? When discussing military technology development, I think it's important to indicate to the reader what intended use cases this technology was designed for, and this would be consistent with then-current NATO planning for responses to Soviet incursions
• "Owing to the immense investments companies were expected to make on their own, teaming was encouraged by the SPO. Following proposal submissions, Lockheed, Boeing, and General Dynamics formed a team to develop whichever of their proposed designs was selected, if any. Northrop and McDonnell Douglas formed a team with a similar agreement." - first, at least in the linked edition of the source, this is on pp. 93-94 not just p. 94 as the citation currently states, but I'm not seeing where the source actually indicates that this was encouraged by the SPO on either of those pages
• "good empirical results from radar range testing at its test range in Helendale, California" - not a huge fan of the name-drop of Helendale here as the source doesn't mention this location

To be honest, I'm not a huge fan of the sourcing. The Hehs source which is used frequently is part of a publication produced under the auspices of the manufacturer of this aircraft. Mullin 2012 is written by the "Vice President and General Manager of the Lockheed-Boeing-General Dynamics F-22 Team from 1986 to 1990." I'm going to place an oppose for now as I don't think these sources can be considered arms-length of the subject, particularly Mullin who is writing about his own personal work to some extent. For instance, we're using Mullin to support "The resulting proposal improvements were substantial, particularly the volume for systems engineering" which is describing the changes made after Mullin himself was put in charge of the project. Additionally, the publisher of the Aronstein and Mitchell book indicates that the authors "have been intimately involved in the acquisition and development of the advanced tactical fighter (ATF) program from its inception." While I understand that these individuals so deeply intertwined in the project probably know more about it than any other person, I don't think I can support an article at FAC that is using clearly non-independent sources as heavily as this one is due to the obvious neutrality concerns that come with people writing about their own doings. I think this article's sourcing is better suited for GA than FA. Hog Farm _Talk 23:50, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

With regards to the sourcing, for Aronstein, Hirschberg, and Piccirillo, only Piccirollo was involved as the program manager during the concept development phase, and was succeeded by Fain during Dem/Val, which is the bulk of the article's focus. Meanwhile Aronstein and Hirschberg are pretty well-established authors in aerospace with no insider access to the program. With Mullin, statements in the article that are comparative or evaluative in nature (i.e. improvements in the systems engineering volume of the proposal) have been directly attributed to him in the prose, which I think is fine (let me know if I missed any). Factual descriptive statements, like the 4-tail configuration of the NATF proposal, is not nearly as contentious so I think that should be fine. That being said, I can lean more into secondary sources from established aviation publications like Aviation Week & Space Technology, Flight International, and Aerofax to reduce primary sourcing, particularly for anything comparative or interpretive. Steve7c8 (talk) 12:41, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think that leaning more into secondary sources (which are better able to evaluate the claims of insiders like Piccirillo or Mullin [it's also unclear how much influence Lockheed had over Hehs writings since it appears to be an internal publication of theirs, even if Hehs wasn't necessarily involved in the ATF program]) but I think this process would be better done outside the time and article stability constraints of FAC. Hog Farm _Talk 20:32, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

To what extent to you suggest removing Aronstein & Hirschberg, and Mullin as sources? I don't think the wholesale elimination of them would be beneficial. Steve7c8 (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

It's time to archive this now, perhaps the discussion could be continued on the article talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Sourcing issues

This article did not pass FA nomination because of sourcing issues. The sources (particularly Hehs, Mullin, and Aronstein, Hirschberg & Piccirillo) are considered too participant-adjacent. I’m not sure to what extent these sources should be removed or replaced. Steve7c8 (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2026 (UTC)