Talk:Lockheed Martin FB-22
Lockheed Martin FB-22 is currently a Warfare good article nominee. Nominated by Steve7c8 (talk) at 05:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC) Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.) Short description: Proposed bomber aircraft for the U.S. Air Force derived from the F-22 Raptor |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Citation
[edit]A citation of source for the remarks I added will be provided soon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klauth (talk • contribs) 18:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
F-117A
[edit]Isn't this also a stealth bomber replacement? (Yeah, the F-117A, so called stealth fighter, which only bombs) 70.51.10.109 08:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- The 2018 interim bomber will compliment the B-2 and other current bombers. The FB-22's range is only like 1/4 of the B-2 and other current heavy bombers. The interim bomber will replace the F-117, I guess. The F-35 will cover some of that too. The F-117 has missiles as well. -Fnlayson 17:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- The bomb part is largely right. The F-117 mainly carried laser guided bombs. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- And it's also retired now. Spartan198 (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Rename article
[edit]This article should be renamed to "Lockheed Martin FB-22" to follow WP:Naming conventions (aircraft) guidelines. In other words
Any reasonable arguments not to rename it? -Fnlayson (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think the reason it hasn't been renamed that before is that Boeing is the primary proponent of the variant, and would probably be the lead contractor/manufacturer if it were to be produced. - BilCat (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's a good one. I have not yet run across anything on Boeing involvement with the FB-22. Other than with the F-22, I've only seen mention of a Boeing-LM partnership for the subsonic New Generation Bomber. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Has the consensus changed here? Cause the article's been moved. - BilCat (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- ...this would be an oops on my part, I didn't see this before moving it. >.< - The Bushranger (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Has the consensus changed here? Cause the article's been moved. - BilCat (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- No problem, BR. I looked in the article,and there's no mention of Boeing in it that I could find anyway. I'll see what I can dig up this week, and we'll go from there. - BilCat (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
FB-22 Strike Raptor
[edit]I think it should be called “Lockheed Martin FB-22 Strike Raptor. 50.75.39.166 (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Reliable source(s) are needed to support renaming this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
GA nomination
[edit]After reworking this article, is the quality sufficient for GA nomination? Steve7c8 (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I believe the 6 criteria at WP:GACR are met here. But double check that. Do ask if you help any help. Thanks -Fnlayson (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Good article nominees
- Good article nominees awaiting review
- B-Class aviation articles
- B-Class aircraft articles
- WikiProject Aircraft articles
- WikiProject Aviation articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class military aviation articles
- Military aviation task force articles
- B-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- B-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles