Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Advanced Tactical Fighter

« Return to A-Class review list

Advanced Tactical Fighter

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Steve7c8 (talk)

Advanced Tactical Fighter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it recently passed GA assessment and has since been further revised in terms of content. Steve7c8 (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

It's always good to see high quality articles on weapons programs. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • The first para of the lead is rather breathless as it's all one sentence. I'd suggest splitting it up.
  • Ditto the second sentence of the second para in the lead
  • The sentence starting with "Thus, the ATF would be a new air superiority fighter" is over-long and a bit confusing as a result
  • "During Dem/Val, the ATF SPO program manager was Colonel James A. Fain, while the technical director (or chief engineer) was Eric "Rick" Abell. The director of ATF requirements was Colonel David J. McCloud of TAC," - I don't see a strong reason for naming these people given they're never referred to again in the article
    Comment: Since they were in charge of the project, I think they should be named. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Northrop was viewed as riskier because it was struggling with the B-2 and AGM-137 TSSAM programs in meeting cost, schedule, and predicted stealth performance" - the grammar is a bit off here
  • Fixed.
  • Fixed.
  • Changed it to "The ATF would thus be a new air superiority fighter"
  • A recent podcast with Rick Abell where he discusses the ATF is one of the citations, so I figured it was useful to have him listed as one of the key ATF program individuals.
  • would "in terms of meeting cost..." be better?
  • Not particularly, aside from the obvious application of technology into succeeding aircraft programs, which isn't just for the JSF. At most, I can probably add that the JSF was to use a propulsion system derived from the ATF.
In a few decades, I might rewrite the NGAD article into a similar level as this. Steve7c8 (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve7c8, will you be responding to the above comments? Afaict, 3 images need more licensing details and 2 images need the licenses to be changed. Matarisvan (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No changes have been made. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected the licensing for two images, added link to the RFI drawing. For the SPO patch and the MiG-29 and Su-27 image, I'm not sure how to resolve them. For the latter two, it appears that the link is now broken. Steve7c8 (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve7c8, in that case, please add the archive URLs for the latter two images.
@Hawkeye7, comments from your end on the image and source reviews? I think the latter is probably done. Matarisvan (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to have been resolved, with three supports now. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Sources are reputable and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge.
  • Notes
    • These require references
  • Citations
    • fn 17: Link seems broken
    • fn 52: The only journal with an ISSN. Suggest removing for consistency.
    • fn 17, 30, 64, 65, 73 - retrieval date?
    • fn 30: What's the difference between this and the Mullins one in the bibliography?
    • fn 62: Archive date?
    • fn 62: Add author (Greg Goebel)
    • fn 62: Date is 1 January 2009, not 1 February 2007
    • fn 65: Subscription required.
    • fn 73: Usurped URL
  • Bibliography
    • Metz (2007): Reformat the ISBN to match the others
    • Miller (1995) is not used
    • Mullin (1992) is not used
    • Jenkins and Landis (2008) is not used
    • Pace (1999): Title is "F-22 Raptor: America's Next Lethal War Machine"
  • Spot checks:
    • 4, 12a, 24a, 41a - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved unused books in the bibliography into a new "Further readings" section. Added references to all notes. Steve7c8 (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7, have all your comments been addressed? Matarisvan (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks fine to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Pendright

The length of the article is such that I'll be reviewing it in increments—the first of which follows. Pendright (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • The Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) was a program undertaken by the United States Air Force to develop a next-generation air superiority fighter to replace the F-15 Eagle.
Giving words there ordinary meaning, this reads more like a project than a program; I suspect program is military nomenclature? The Info-box refers to ATF as a project - could be confusing for some readers.
"Program" and "project" are often used interchangeably in DOD programs. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new fighter was intended to counter emerging worldwide threats in the 1980s, including Soviet Sukhoi Su-27 and Mikoyan MiG-29 fighters under development, Beriev A-50 airborne warning and control systems (AWACS), and increasingly sophisticated surface-to-air missile systems.
The proposed fighter was intended to...
  • The U.S. Navy considered using a naval version of the ATF (called NATF) as a replacement for the F-14 Tomcat, but these plans were later canceled due to costs.
As you know, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. The above information does not seem to meet either of these standards.
Given that the YF-22 and YF-23 articles included this detail in the lead, I kept it here. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve7c8: The more defensible position would be to tighten-up the clause, and present such information as a parenthetical phrase; putting readers on notice that it is additional information. What do you think? Pendright (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've considerably simplified the clause. Steve7c8 (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Program history

  • In 1981, USAF began forming requirements for the ATF, eventually codenamed "Senior Sky"
In 1981, the USAF
  • It was envisioned that the ATF would incorporate emerging technologies including advanced alloys and composite material, advanced avionics and fly-by-wire flight control systems, higher power propulsion systems, and low-observable, or stealth technology.
Change including to include if what follows technologies is essential to the meaning of the sentence. If it is non-essential or additional information then add a common after technologies.
  • After discussions with Tactical Air Command (TAC), the CDT/SPO determined that the ATF should focus on air-to-air missions; the air-to-surface missions would be handled by the upgraded F-111, the upcoming Dual-Role Fighter (DRF) (which would result in the F-15E Strike Eagle) as well as the then-classified F-117 Nighthawk ("Senior Trend"), while the air-to-air threat from the new Soviet fighters and AWACS remained.
This is about a 70 word sentence - suggest breaking it up. Wikipedia emphasizes clarity and conciseness in all articles. While there is no strict limit of word count per sentence, editors are encouraged to write in a way that is easily understood by a broad audience.
  • The ATF would thus be a new air superiority fighter in the vein of the SCM concept with outstanding aerodynamic performance, and intended to replace the capability of the F-15 Eagle; in the potential scenario of a Soviet and Warsaw Pact invasion in Central Europe, the ATF was envisaged to launch from bases in central England and support the air-land battle by performing offensive and defensive counter-air missions against the Soviet air-to-air threats that would then allow the DRF and other strike aircraft to perform air interdiction against ground targets.
About a 90 word sentence -> same as above
  • The General Electric and Pratt & Whitney each received $202 million contracts (~$519 million in 2023) for the development and production of prototype engines in September 1983; Allison chose to not submit a bid due to technical problems with their advanced development demonstrators.[19][20]
I'd drop the definite article before General Electric
  • Avionics were also expected to be a major component of the ATF in light of rapidly advancing semiconductor technology; requests for advanced avionics components such as the integrated electronic warfare system were sent out that November.[21]
expected needs context
  • As a result of stealth technology, the design details became "black" even though the ATF was a publicly acknowledged program.
"black" - meaning could be unclear to some readers
  • By late 1984, the SPO had settled on the ATF requirements and released the Statement of Operational Need (SON), which called for a fighter with a takeoff gross weight of 50,000 pounds (23,000 kg), a mission radius of 500 nautical miles (580 mi; 930 km) mixed subsonic/supersonic or 700–800 nautical miles (806–921 mi; 1,300–1,480 km) subsonic, supercruise speed of Mach 1.4–1.5, the ability to use a 2,000-foot (600 m) runway, and signature reduction particularly in the frontal sections.
  • Around 80 words - same as above
  • Does supercruise need a hyphen
"Supercruise" is a formal term in aeronautics. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow Pendright (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Requests for proposals

  • A request for proposals (RFP) for demonstration and validation (Dem/Val) was issued in September 1985, with proposals initially to be due that December.[23]
First clause: Reads like only one RFP was issued:
A request for proposals (RFP)...was issued?
  • At this time, the SPO had anticipated procuring 750 ATFs at a unit cost of $35 million in fiscal year (FY) 1985 dollars (~$84.2 million in 2023) with final design selection in 1989 and service entry in 1995 with a peak production rate of 72 aircraft per year, although even at this point the peak rate was being questioned and the entry date was at risk of slipping to the late 1990s due to potential RFP adjustments and budget constraints.[27]
About 80 words - same as above
  • Shortly afterwards, the Navy under Congressional pressure joined the ATF program initially as an observer to examine the possibility using a navalised derivative, named the Navy Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF), to replace the F-14 Tomcat; the Navy would eventually announced in 1988 that they would procure 546 aircraft under the NATF program at a peak rate of 48 per year.[28][29]
  • possibility of using
  • navalised or navalized refers to the process of adapting an aircraft for naval use - specifically for operation from an aircraft carrier. This or something like it would make a reader friendly note.
  • The ATF SPO was pressured to followed the recommendations of the Packard Commission, and in May 1986, the RFP was changed so that final selection would involve flying prototypes.[29]
  • Change followed to follow
  • Should selection be plural?
  • While Lockheed also had extensive prior stealth experience, their actual aircraft design was quite immature and only existed as a rough concept that would be extensively redesigned; instead, Lockheed primarily focused on systems engineering and trade studies in its proposal, which pulled it ahead of Northrop's to take top rank.[29][24]
  • would have to be extensively redesigned
  • Change rank to ranking
  • The two teams, Lockheed/Boeing/General Dynamics and Northrop/McDonnell Douglas, were awarded $691 million firm fixed-price contracts in FY 1985 dollars (~$1.66 billion in 2023) and would undertake a 50-month Dem/Val phase, culminating in the flight test of two technology demonstrator prototypes, the YF-22 and the YF-23; Pratt & Whitney and General Electric would also receive $341 million (~$820 million in 2023) each for the development and prototyping of the competing engines (designated YF119 and YF120 respectively), and the JAFE propulsion effort would later be renamed ATF Engine (ATFE) and directly managed by the ATF SPO.
About a 100 word sentence - same as above
Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable

More to follow - Pendright (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Dem/Val

  • In addition to the government contract awards, company investments during Dem/Val would amount to $675 million and $650 million (~$1.5 billion and ~$1.45 billion in 2023) for the Lockheed and Northrop teams respectively, not counting additional investments during prior phases or by subcontractors; Pratt & Whitney and General Electric would each invest $100 million as well (~$222 million in 2023).
About a 60 word sentence - same as above
  • This enabled the SPO to adjust ATF requirements and delete ones that were significant weight and cost drivers while having marginal operational value.
  • Change ones to those
  • Aside from advances in air vehicle and propulsion technology, the ATF would make a leap in avionics performance with a fully integrated avionics suite that fuses sensor information together into a common tactical picture, thus improving the pilot's situational awareness and reducing workload; the avionics were expected to make up about 40% of the ATF's flyaway cost.
leap into avionics
Changed to "in terms of" as that's what the intended meaning is. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selection

  • Following a review of the flight test results and proposals, the Secretary of the Air Force Donald Rice announced the Lockheed team and Pratt & Whitney as the competition winner for full-scale development, or Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD), on 23 April 1991; by this time, the 1990 Major Aircraft Review by Defense Secretary Dick Cheney had reduced the planned total ATF buy to 650 aircraft and peak production rate to 48 per year.[60]
  • A 60-plus word sentence - same as above
  • Bracket Donald Rice with commas - it's an appositive and not essential to the meaning of the sentence
  • by the Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney, -> same as above
  • The selection decision has been speculated by aviation observers to have involved industrial factors and perception of program management as much as the technical merit of the aircraft designs.
"has been" in a sentence signifies the present perfect tense, indicating an action that started in the past and continues or has a relevant effect in the present. -> Is this the case?
Yes, that is still the case. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the YF-23 air vehicle was in a higher state of maturity and refinement compared to the YF-22 due to the latter's late redesign and partly as a result had better flight performance, the Lockheed team executed a more aggressive flight test plan with considerably higher number of sorties and hours flown; furthermore, Lockheed chose to execute high-visibility tests such as firing missiles and high angle-of-attack maneuvers that, while not required, improved its perception by the USAF in managing weapons systems risk.[70]
The sentence contains 80-odd words - same as above

Notes

  • Note 3 does not seem to be supported by a citation?

This it for now - Pendright (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC) Done - @Steve7c8: - Pendright (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback, I've incorporated most of the suggestions as well as some comments above. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting - Pendright (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Advanced_Tactical_Fighter&oldid=1289317402"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Advanced Tactical Fighter, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.