Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Rare earth elements information

I don't see what the point of adding this trivia-like information in the article is. This is an overview of the F-35, not about specific parts of the supply chain. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Unless it is tied to a specific incident or similar, then these are issues buried in the supply chain and belong in some other article dealing with rare earth supplies etc. - Ahunt (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The rare earth information gives an idea of the technology level of the aircraft. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Not really. Basically all major technology today is dependent on rare earth metals, from cellphones to cars to televisions and more. The F-35 is hardly unique or notable in this. Honestly, it would be much more notable if the F-35 DIDN'T use rare earth metals. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The point is the quantity. About 3% of an F-35 are REE. Trigenibinion (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

A Tesla is similar to a regular car in REE content, as they are not heavily used in the propulsion system. Trigenibinion (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

This is triva as written, as the paragraph doesn't assert its importance. You said, "About 3% of an F-35 are REE." As opposed to what percentage in other fighter types? Also, why does the price of REEs matter? Your last edit summary stated, "Most REE supply is controlled by China", yet that isn't in the paragraph at all. Is it in the sources? BilCat (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Precisely, it would be interesting to know how much REE is in other fighters to assess how much more advanced is the F-35 in reality. The price matters as the F-35 is considered to be an expensive fighter (its actual cost has been challenged). Several of the sources mention that the US is very worried about its dependence on China for REE (and China is putting sanctions on Raytheon and Lockheed) Trigenibinion (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I also tend to agree. Unless we have reliable sources specifically pointing out how this is significant information, or how this stands out from the norm, then this is, at best, statistical trivia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Issues with the Operators map

In the section "Operators" there is a map however the legend does not actually match the map, for example Germany and Switzerland are mentioned as "Potential operators" However Switzerland is coloured as Awaiting delivery and germany isn't coloured at all. Spain is also coloured as a potential operator but it isnt mentioned anywhere in the key, Poland is also the blue colour that F-35A operators are, but should be under either potential operators or awaiting delivery since they dont actually have any F-35s yet. Tamoraboys (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

F-35 Operational History will eventually have to be its own article

With so many operators (the F-35 is essentially becoming the de facto NATO fighter), this section will inevitably have to be branched into its own article. I don't know when that will occur, but I think it will happen sooner or later. I've split the US section into the separate branches to make it more organized. Steve7c8 (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Seeing that it will become the most universally used fighter in the most number of countries, that makes perfect sense. This is a very different situation than say the F4, which was also popular and made in larger numbers, for a variety of reasons. Will take a lot of sourcing, but that fact alone likely will (or does) merit a stand alone article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

attempt to enter countries without contracts onto F-35 main page

Can you please quote this wikipedia policy that you are using to revert an edit twice now? Because I've been here 16 years with over 66,000 edits and would like to think I'm pretty up on policy. If you are talking about WP:TOOSOON, that is an essay on WP:Notability, which doesn't apply to edits, only subjects. If you are thinking WP:CRYSTALBALL, that refers to unverifiable edits, not verified edits. Not sure what other essay/policy you could be referring to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is no place for future events WP:NOTNEWS - listed countries do not have contracts for F-35 and there's a separate page for F-35 procurement. Finland didn't make this page until it signed a contract, same scrutiny should apply to other countries or else it's not fair.E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

If I had to pick, I would lean on not including since the potential operators are not listed in that section. I don't have have a strong opinion either way though. On a side note, E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr, the map and its legend need to match so we'll have to update them both once consensus is reached and not do it half way like it's been done until now, and if you continue to try to impose your version through edit warring, I'll be the first one to report you to get you blocked. Decisions here are based on collaborative discussions and WP:CONSENSUS.--McSly (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

For me it's just about maintaining consistent scrutiny (Finland required a contract, Switzerland was removed from the body of this section due to no contract). Something else to consider is that there's about 12 countries that are "potential" on Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement and that could make the map busy and unclear as only 5 were added onto the map (what makes these 5 more worthy than all 12, right?), currently the map has various color designations and it takes an effort to understand what they mean individually. E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

We follow the sources, even if the map doesn't match. We are here to present verifiable facts, not match a map. If the map needs updating, ask the creator of the map, but we wouldn't want to exclude information from sources just because a map is outdated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

If the map is outdated and isn't getting fixed in a timely manner then just remove it from the article until it does get fixed, if ever. - Ahunt (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

it's not only that, we reached consensus in the past that a contract has to be signed for a country to be listed in the "Operators" section. see: Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II#Removal of Germany from Potential Operators and Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Germany, Greece, Switzerland, Canada - have all been accommodated by getting listed here: Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II#Procurement and international participation and this section also features a map, but people aren't editing its legend to include Germany, Greece, Switzerland, Canada. As was agreed to before, listing 'Potential Countries' in the 'Operators' section doesn't stay on topic to what this section's about. E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Dennis please review Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II#Removal of Germany from Potential Operators for what the consensus was for "potential countries". Here we are again. Someone chose to force potential countries back on this page, this time by including them in the map legend. And like I said: there's 12 countries considering the F-35, only 6 are listed on the legend, and the legend and map don't match, the maps missing most potential countries. Also Dennis Brown - you claimed "consensus" for removing my last edit - but you're the only person who's speaking in support of it, so I will ask you to stop edit warring yourself. Mcsly said the map and legend should match, and I constructively changed the legend to add Spain, which was on the map but not on the legend, and removed Germany as it's not on the map, but was forced onto the legend - and for this you accuse me of edit warring? E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

That is a discussion between you and a couple of editors, not exactly global consensus. ie: it wasn't an RFC or polled discussion. The last sentence in that discussion was "The project guidelines (WP:Air/PC) say to put "potential operators" under Operational history or Development. Those sections seem best to me, but ignore the rules if needed. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)" so that's not really a committed path. More importantly, you need to tone it down. This isn't a heated discussion, or at least doesn't need to be. You're "Here we go again" comments aren't conducive to having a civil discussion. Just keep it on topic, please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

And to be clear, I don't have a strong view either way, but I'm not going to tolerate edit warring over it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Don't you think it's odd how "potential operators" are listed in this section: Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II#Procurement and international participation which has a map, but they're not listed in the legend. However the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II#Operators section doesn't speak about potential operators - yet the map legend has potential operators listed? E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, the maps needs to be updated or removed. And if sources can be found about potential buyers, a blip covering that fact is worth adding in the prose. I haven't yet, but contacting the map creator would (again) likely be a good start. I personally don't find a the map that useful for stuff like this, but I'm not sure I'm in the majority on that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Dennis can you explain the reason why you put Germany in the legend, despite not appearing on the map - and why you removed my edit to add Spain to the legend, which is on the map? Both are potential operators, why include one but not the other? E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It was a single revert that had both in it, and I was restoring to the version before all the edit warring started (you can compare and see). The goal was to get this started on the talk pages. I really do not care whether information matches the map or not, as the map is "informational" but not a source. If we have a source for Spain, I have no problem including it. Really, I'm not taking a hard stance on what is included or not. I don't know that I've done a lot of editing here, I could have just protected or blocked as admin, as I wasn't really WP:INVOLVED. Honestly, it is all about stopping the warring and getting others to talk, not to push my preferred version. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

This map is an absolute mess - pure torture for the readers eyes. last time I checked we have wiki-links for all the listed countries, a nameless map is just redundant non-notable eye candy. - FOX 52 ^talk! 01:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree ditch the map. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Straying off-topic: 1. Development >> 1.5 Procurement & International Participation

Because of the size of my edit, I have a duty to explain: This main section is entitled "Development" and then began straying off-topic in the section titled: "1.5 Procurement & International Participation". The main message of this sub-section wasn't conveyed well enough, and it lead to the topic straying off-topic. What I believe this section was referring to, was the initial Tier 1, 2, & 3 partner countries. Each tier was based on the size of payments/investments made by initial JSF program countries - in return they received the right to be first in line for deliveries AND the right for industrial participation & off-sets (such as the right to produce F-35 components in their countries). The right to industrial participation isn't outlined in this development subsection. This is why it starts straying off-topic and begins listing random countries' Foreign Military Sales (FMS) - which don't have the right to industrial participation and off-sets. Additionally, Foreign Military Sales didn't contribute to the F-35's development, as such countries are essentially purchasing an off-the-shelf finished product - which doesn't relate to the "Development" section. For more information about "international participation" please see this wikipedia page: Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_procurement#Participation_and_orders E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Potential retirement of the oldest F-35s

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.

---

It has been reported that some of the oldest F-35's may be retired quickly instead of upgraded and this has been reverted. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

It was reverted because the refs you cited do not support that claim. If you want to make that claim you will need actual refs that say that, see WP:PROVEIT. - Ahunt (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The PM article spoke about "permanently unfit for combat", fine. But I added another ref that states that the AF may have to consider retiring some F-35 early. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

(e/c) The article speaks of future plans that are very uncertain now. Given that, adding text about vague plans does not seem to add much to the article imo. It'd be better to wait until the USAF actually starts retiring the newish F-35As, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Whether they are early retired, underutilized, or expensively upgraded, in all cases the problem is already notable. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

You still need refs that back up what you are claiming. So far you don't have any. - Ahunt (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Both references back this up. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The text you tried to add was It is possible the about 200 oldest F-35 that the US has will be retired, unless they undergo an expensive upgrade. The refs you cited were Popular Mechanics and The National Interest. The first ref says This new money-saving proposal would keep the 108 Air Force F-35s (which cost taxpayers a staggering $21.4 billion, according to Grazier) at a non-combat-rated status. The Project on Government Oversight contacted the F-35 program office (which manages all three variants of the plane) and Lockheed Martin asking when the 81 Navy and Marine Corps early version jets would be upgraded to Block 3F and never got a response. and makes no mention of retiring them at all. The second ref says The Air Force may start to retire their oldest F-35A airfares in favor of newer, more advanced builds of the same airframe, a senior Air Force official suggested in a recent interview. But it also says of a retirement “It's not in our plans right now, but that would be something that we would have to take into consideration," Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote, the Air Force's Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategy, Integration, and Requirements reportedly stated, referring to early-model F-35A retirement. ”Because the big question is, 'Are we going to go back and retrofit the F-35?’” That second official statement essentially dismisses the first as pure speculation. See WP:CRYSTAL for why we don't put stuff like that in articles. We don't report rumours. If you really want to pursue this, based on those two refs the best you could say is that the USAF has not decided what will happen to the early F-35As already delivered. I would suggest any speculation should be left out entirely until there is an actual plan announced. - Ahunt (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

There's no speculation, a problem exists: the planes will be either early retired, underutilized, or expensively upgraded. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It is all speculation on your part. The official sources in the articles you found state that no decisions have been made. No official sources indicate that the aircraft will be retired, only upgraded or not upgraded. Unless you can find some better sources that back up your claim, I think that this is a WP:DEADHORSE. We have no information worth adding to the article at this point in time. - Ahunt (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Not upgraded but not retired means they would be underutilized (only fit for training, as it is already happening). Three bad possibilities, no speculation. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Once again you are speculating and your ref does not support any of those claims, only that some F-35s are being assigned to US aggressor sqns. There are many roles for older, un-upgraded F-35s besides training like aggressors, including demonstration teams (Thunderbirds), lower intensity conflicts where they would not need the full updated suite, foreign assistance, and also proficiency flying to name a few. If I had to speculate I would guess that when these older aircraft are sent to the contractor for their mid-life upgrade and overhaul (IRAN) they will be updated to modern standards then. The USAF and USN have a long history of exactly that approach to older aircraft. But that is pure speculation on my part.

Regardless, this discussion is getting dull and wasting a lot of time as you keep throwing in more and more of your own opinions and keep citing sources that don't back them up. Unless you can contribute anything new here I think we can just close this discussion as "no consensus to include your proposed additions". - Ahunt (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The F-35 is also too sophisticated to be limited to those other uses, claim remains. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The UK might also keep substandard ones (this would not only apply to the oldest): Trigenibinion (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

References

So what? The ref you have cited only says that there is some doubt whether UK F-35s all will be upgraded or only some. The only useful info is from the minister and it is quite vague, the rest is idle speculation: "The F-35 Block 4 upgrade has been included in the U.K. F-35 programme budget since its inception," Quin responded. However, "decisions on the number of aircraft to be upgraded will be made on the basis of military capability requirements." Regardless that is not the subject of the discussion here - we were discussing the United States F-35s, not UK. - Ahunt (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2022 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2022

Under "Operators: Turkey". "Turkey was removed from the F-35 program due to purchasing Russian S-400's which goes against the collective agreement of NATO members to move away from Russian hardware. Source ReticuliZ (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. BilCat (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

You can note that Turkey's situation is already fully explained under operators at Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II#Operators. - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Belgium will be a user of these aircraft.

Belgium bought 34 F35 lightning II. The first 3 will be delivered by the end of 2022. They are currently being assembled in Italy. This was on the Belgian news a few months ago. 178.51.110.28 (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Already documented at Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II#Operators as well as Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II operators and Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement#Belgium. Did you have some sort of point to make? - Ahunt (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

2.5 Armaments

Section discusses external stations and how the use is for non-stealth mode. Is there a reference in regards to dropping the external connection points to regain stealth status from discharging weapons (or retracting/ejecting connection points after discharge) or an article confirming that the loss of stealth status is permanent until ground operators disconnect external connection points? CycloneSteve (talk) 05:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2022

in Specification section: Mach 1.6 (1975 km/h) Terzy2 (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

This needs a reliable source to support it. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. BilCat (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

U.S. -> US

Per MOS:US, all instances of "U.S." in this article to be changed to "US" (plenty of instances of "UK", "USAF", "USN", etc.). I would normally fix this myself, but I'm just surprised nobody's addressed this before and want to make sure this is the correct thing to do. Findingmoney100 (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The first thing MOS:US says is "US or U.S. may be used (with internal consistency) to abbreviate "United States"...". Then the guidance there gets murky. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Cost and Controversy

The F-35 is the most expensive weapon programs in mankind's history, dwarfing the total cost of the Manhattan Project, for example. Some critics believe this huge amount of money was misspent.

It is beyond ridiculous that this page does not have Sections discussing the Cost and the Controvery.Jamesdowallen (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

There is plenty of detail on the matter in Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II development which this page links to. Further more most fighter aircraft are controversial when they are young (e.g F/A-18 being called "lemon" and F-16 being called "Lawn dart") however the detail isnt included since its no longer part of peoples thinking. Given the level of detail in the development and program pages (which give far more detail to the F-35's development than most fighters get) to have more detail here would probably just be recentism (see WP:10YT). Tamoraboys (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

that may be true, but given the enormous amount of press devoted to problems, it is kinda shocking that there isn't a separate section entitled "problems" or something like that

the article is full of jargon like the cockpit is said to give the pilot "situational awareness" which is, afaik a BS jargon term for "good visibility 50.245.17.105 (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• There is far more to situational awareness than just visual info. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Overview of F-35 ordered - The Netherlands

The Dutch have 52 on order (unconditional), please remove reference to 24 delivered, 37 ordered and 52 planned; 52 are ORDERED — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.248.54.18 (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The entry says "52 F-35As ordered in total" now. The other info can be updated with new or updated sources added. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

"In service" vs. "In production"

I would like to have some clarity on this, because the status of "in production" appears to be deviate from the articles about most other military aircraft in a similar situation, which is in service and under production. For instance, articles on the F-15E, F-16, F/A-18, UH-60, etc. Steve7c8 (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The documentation says Status of the programme, e.g. "Prototypes only", "Abandoned project". In most cases, redundant; use sparingly, but on WikiProject Aircraft the norm for many years has been "in production" versus "production completed" vs "retired" for most mass produced commercial and military aircraft types. If it is in production it is obviously in service, as what else would the manufacturer be doing with the aircraft produced but providing them to customers for use? The use of "in production and in service" is basically redundant. The use of "in service" alone is very imprecise and just doesn't tell readers much, basically "not retired". As per the documentation quote above, if there is any confusion caused then it should just be left blank and omitted. - Ahunt (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

That may be the case with the documentation, but the aforementioned articles all use "in service" as the status despite also still being in production. That is the reason that I changed it here, which is to maintain consistency with most other articles. If it’s the other articles that need to be fixed, then that can be done as well, but I would like to keep it consistent. Steve7c8 (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Basically the other articles all need to be fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

FYI, the production status is roughly covered in the produced years template field, e.g. 2006-present. So this info is not lost with "In service" for the status. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Specifications for the same variant are internally inconsistent in the same article

In the "General characteristics" section for the F-35A Specifications, "Empty weight" is listed as "29,300 lb", and "Max takeoff weight" is listed as "65,918 lb"; and yet, in the "Differences between variants" section, "Empty weight" is listed as "28,999 lb", and "Max takeoff weight" is listed as "70,000 lb"; the differences between the range figures seems particularly glaring as well ("1,500 nmi" vs. ">1,200 nmi"). Please track down the cause for the discrepancy and issue the required corrections. 74.104.187.84 (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Bad source for financials

Just want to head off any use of this article for financial info on the F-35B. The NYT is normally top-tier, but this reporter has misunderstood the term base year (BY) in her source and refers to a cost "as low as $70 million in 2012" which makes no sense. "$72.1M (BY 2012)" in 2023 dollars would be closer to $100 million. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Example of bad design

Here's a lecture at the Norwegian Developers Conference by a computer user interface designer who uses the F-15 as an example of bad design. The title, "Wouldn't it be cool..." refers to the F-15's replacing mechanical switches with a touch screen, whose buttons fail 20% of the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGUqyb6mzDw

“Wouldn’t it be cool…” and other bad design approaches - Billy Hollis - NDC London 2023

NDC Conferences

May 16, 2023

Nbauman (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The talk is about the F35 not the F15 (guess a typo). Also it is a one hour lecture, can you give a time when this is discussed? Also what is exactly the suggestion for improving the article you are making with your post? Arnoutf (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Apparently, that guy isn't involved in the F-35 program, and is just giving an anecdote which may not even be correct. If so, he's not a reliable source on this, and we couldn't include anything from this vid in the article. By the way, what's the fail percentage of several dozen mechanical switches in a fighter cockpit? Without knowing that, the comparison is practically useless. That's not even mentioning the pilot workload involved in knowing where every single one of those switches is in a cramped cockpit, and making sure one selects the correct one. Pilot overload was a huge problem in analog cockpits in late-third-gen fighter cockpits, many of which were very poorly designed ergonomically. BilCat (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Is this because the F-35 has touch screens that this has been posted here? And is this about the article (eg: a suggeated edit) or is this just a general comment for interest's sake? - wolf 08:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Here's a pilot who cites his 20% failure rate with the touch screen. https://hushkit.net/2021/01/21/what-is-good-and-bad-about-the-f-35-cockpit-a-panthers-pilots-guide-to-modern-cockpits/ I'm fine with finding multiple sources to confirm it.

The guy is a computer developer whose expertise is in good design vs. failure -- which goes across all disciplines. For example, the designers of medical equipment, including computers, used engineering principles learned in aircraft (particularly cockpit) design. (One medical computer designer visited Boeing to study their user interfaces.)

(If you want, I'll find the location and check the typo when I get back to another computer.) Nbauman (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Czech Republic

The following request was placed on my Talk page today:

Hello, could you add the Czech Republic to the f-35 users in the f-35 article. The Czech government approved the purchase of 24 f-35s a few days ago. 193.165.236.247 (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Dolphin (t) 13:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

As long as we can find a reliable source, sure. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The Czech Republic has to sign an order contract or comparable agreement for aircraft to be considered an operator, not merely selecting it. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:CF-1 flight_test.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 20, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-06-20. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is an American family of single-seat, single-engine, stealth multirole combat aircraft designed for air superiority and strike missions; it also has electronic warfare and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities. The aircraft descends from the Lockheed Martin X-35, with development funded principally by the United States, with additional funding from program partner countries from NATO. Its first flight took place in 2006 and it entered service with the United States Air Force in 2015. Its first combat operation was in the 2018 Operation House of Cards by the Israeli Air Force. The F-35 Lightning II has three main variants: the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A, the short take-off and vertical-landing F-35B, and the carrier-based F-35C. This photograph shows an F-35C conducting a test flight over Chesapeake Bay in 2011.

Photograph credit: Andy Wolfe

Recently featured:

• Six-spot burnet
• Copper sunbird
• Sugarloaf Mountain

Military history/North American military

As a North American vehicle, it should probably be part of WikiProject Military history/North American military. However, I need to hear if this should be the case - BeeboMan (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

All-weather?

Aren't most planes weatherproof? As a layman, the inclusion of "all-weather" in the lede is puzzling, especially as there's no other mention of "weather" in the article and no link for context. I gather from a search of the Talk archives that the plane has been accused of being vulnerable to lightning (ironic or what?), and this could be in response to that accusation? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not what the term means. It does not have anything to do with weatherproofing. "All-weather" is a historical concept from the age of jet fighters prior to the Fourth-generation fighter, and refers to whether they have avionics capabilities to fly and perform their missions in a foul-weather environment (meaning, non-visual meteorological conditions). As functionally all modern combat aircraft in service these days have at least basic all-weather capability by virtue of their radar and instrument flight avionics, the term is essentially archaic and no longer used. The F-35's alleged lightning vulnerability is unrelated. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

If the term is obsolete and confusing, how about deleting it? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

As with any fast jet military aircraft, there will be agreed requirements for limits on operational use in various meteorological conditions, e.g. extension of canopy or safe pilot ejection in windspeeds of up to 80 knots, from left side, right side, forward and aft. There may well be some extreme weather conditions in which the aircraft will not be qualified to operate safely. Similarly, there may be limits on pilot habitability in various high temperatures, e.g. "pilot shall be able to operate the aircraft on ground in ambient temperatures of up to 50 degrees Celsius, for up to 30 minutes", etc. So the term "all weather" is a bit meaningless, even for modern fighter jets. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

If it's obsolete, confusing, and meaningless, let's delete it. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

'All-weather' is a 1950s term which really meant 'day or night'. It is not particularly to do with whether it was raining outside. Until then, specialised night fighters, usually twin-engined with two crew and radar, tended to have lower performance than single-seat day fighters without radar like the Sabre or Hawker Hunter. Since then, most fighters, single-seat or two-seat, have been configured as all-weather, with radar and guided weapons. Khamba Tendal (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Lede should be more explicit about the historic nature of the cost/expense

This is the most expensive/costliest weapons program in world history - E.g. The most expensive US defense project ever, The world’s costliest weapons program. I think that should be a clear statement in the lede (if not first paragraph, with the amount). It is in the body of the article, but it is probably one of the most notable fact about the topic. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

These are forecasted costs, haven’t spent nearly $1 trillion yet.

I notice that various IPs have been removing any mention that the F-35 is the most expensive weapons program in history (despite numerous sources, and it being an important notable fact of the topic). Aszx5000 (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Aszx5000 These IP editors possibly work for Lockheed Martin. Might want to put IP protection on this article. Alexysun (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)