We seem to assume all FJ pilots are the same, regarding planning and procedures. My experience of operating with FJ on numerous AAR Trails and AAR supported operations and exercises over 40 years ,is that they are not.
As an example, an AAR Trail to Alaska via Goose Bay for Tornado GR1 and F3. At the Face to Face Brief at Goose Bay the GR1 crews all had Terminal Approach Plates for all possible diversion airfields and were aware of facilities available such as LOX. Also Runway lengths and Take Off requirements, as well as full chart coverage of the route. Not so the F3 crews.
After the brief the Sqn Cdr of the F3 squadron asked to borrow the 1:6 million scale chart of the whole of Canada/ Northern USA which had the route marked on it, together with Refuelling Brackets and Abort Points in such a way as to be visible at the back of the briefing room. When I asked him why he told me it was so he could photocopy it and gives his crews copies "so they had some idea of where they were going!". Several questions were asked about my choice of Diversion Airfields, one being " Why are we not using Lynn Lake, as it en-route?" " Because it is a lake! You need floats to land there!"
Unlike the tankers who were used to frequently operate at MTOW for the conditions and therefore calculated the Take Off Data accurately and flew within the narrow performance margins available, the F3s seemed to work on the principal that if the runway was 6000ft plus, all you did was "Bang it into Burner and Go". There was always Martin Baker if it went wrong.
In the case of this F22 incident, it appears that the training unit was teaching/accepting the 120kt rotation technique, as half the pilots were doing it. The TOLD Data was also wrong, but if nobody was using it that was no big deal. They were also retracting the undercarriage below Take off speed. Spicy!
If the person who was doing the FDM was an F22 pilot who used the 120kt technique, would he have flagged it up as a problem?