Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

F-35 on HMS Illustrious?

I have just seen this picture[1] of what appears to be a F-35 on the deck of HMS Illustrious.

I was wondering how this can be as I have read the UK is not to take delivery until 2010. --Alan Evans (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The 2010 delivery time is most likely for production F-35s. The F-35 on Illustrious seems to be for testing type purposes. FI article -Fnlayson (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think some of the dates are speculative. I've flown out of Malmstrom Air Force Base and they had F-35 fly there with 16s two months ago (I couldn't count them, but it was more than 1). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.83.140 (talk) 06:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats a mockup. Dienkonig (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup, just a mockup. Lockheed is just finishing the assembly of the first carrier variant. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

An anti-POGO-stick, just in case

This opinion piece, Inflated F-35 Cost Estimates Ignore Reality, from noted defense think tank Lexington Institute, tackles the recent report on rising F-35 costs. Very intersting. - BilCat (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the author of that article is making the same mistake the people in the program office tend to make and forgetting that testing always has problems. Always. No test program in the history of mankind (a bit of an exageration, I know ;) ) has ever gone off perfectly smoothly. That's why you have the test program. While the JET costs might be high, I think calling them unreasonable is silly. Plus, when you have three wildly different cost estimates (JET, program office, LM), you can be assured that at least two of them are wrong (and the third guy is probably wrong too!) -SidewinderX (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If it is known that testing always results in problems, the testing revealed problem costs can and should be budgeted in the first place; failing to do so is then unreasonable by default ;-) (and for the rest, the Dutch military still has the agreement for 85 F35's for a total sum of US$ 5 billion, to be delivered in 2010) Arnoutf (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a JSF like the Harrier

There was a Joint Strike Fighter compeitior that was a lot like the Harrier, the Boeing X-32. Previous unbuilt supersonic VTOL aircraft designs were even more Harrierish. However, as the current article says:

"This system is more like the Russian Yak-141 and German VJ 101D/E[36] than the preceding generation of STOVL designs, such as the Harrier Jump Jet."

And so I think the Harrier connection is already well handled. Hcobb (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You say the Harrier connection is 'well handled' yet I failed to see any text even including the word 'Harrier'. Respectively, I did not read the whole page in detail, and I presume that not many people that visit the page also do not. Is there any chance of making its connection with the Harrier a bit more, obvious? Flosssock1 (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Harrier is already used seven times on the current F-35 page. Hcobb (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The only real connection the F-35 has to Harrier is the F-35B is replacing it. That's mentioned in the article multiple times as Hcobb mentions. What else is missing that would not be speculation? -Fnlayson (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but could there please be a sentense further up the page (possibly in 'Design') or anywhere suitable. This could include basic similarities, for example: the F-35 is replacing the Harrier, they have single engines (both Rolls-Royce engines for British versions), (S)VTOL and the single seat cockpit design. Flosssock1 (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The F-35B has a radically different lift system than what the Harrier employs. The difference is significant enough that the comparison to the Harrier is less meaningful. Thousands of plane designs use wings to generate lift. Those wings have more in common with the F-35B's wings than the Harrier's lift system has with the F-35B's system. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about SIMILARITIES with the HARRIER. Similarities or differences with other aircraft may be more or less sagnificant with ones of those of the Harrier. But I am familiar with the Harrier, and I know that it has strong relations to the F-35. I did not previously state the lift system in my brief list of similarities because it is different, funnely-enough. Flosssock1 (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no guarantee that British F-35Cs will use Rolls Royce engines. The F136 is a joint venture of Rolls Royce and General Electric, and may not recevie continued development funding. The lift fan of the F-35C will be made by Rolls Royce, but that isn't an engine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJohnS (talk • contribs) 19:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Flosssock1, i'm in the RAF and we have been educated about the similarities and differences of the two aircraft. The F-35 is basicaly half F-Series type jets and half Harrier jet. I would like to see more of the similarities of the two planes on here. 92.239.149.50 (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Then find references that talk about the changes from Harriers to JSF for certain military units. Hcobb (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hcobb, it’s difficult to understand what you Gentle Editors want to add that is not already addressed or else trivial (like single-engine, single-seat – which could be said about a huge number of other aircraft to which it bears no relationship whatsoever). I’m not at all sure where the idea that the F-35 is “basicaly half F-Series type jets and half Harrier jet” comes from – or is supposed to mean. “F-Series” simply means it’s designated as a “Fighter” and the main distinctive of the Harrier, its VTOL capability, is based on a power approach rather dissimilar to that used on the STOVL F-35B. This issue (wherein the Harrier is indeed mentioned) is already addressed in the article. It also notes that the GAU-22/A is “a development of the GAU-12 carried by the USMC's AV-8B Harrier II” and that the F-35B’s gun will likewise be carried in a ventral pod. What has so far been missed that you would like to see added? Please be specific. Thank you, Askari Mark (Talk) 23:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I understant what he means - F-18 surely? And well, I am just trying to improve the page. The Harrier was somewhat of a legendary pioneer of VTOL fast jet's and with such predominant similarities between it and the F-35 I thought it would be of relevance to include some of these similarities. And also, ofcourse, with it being partially designed by the designers of many Harrier variations. Flosssock1 (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand the F-18 comment myself; its only relationship to the F-35 is that the F-35 is replacing the F/A-18 in USN, USMC, and Canadian service. If by "with it being partially designed by the designers of many Harrier variations" you are simply referring to BAe in general, that is true – and also is already covered. (BAe has also designed non-vertical-lift aircraft, too.) If there are specific notable BAe designers that worked on developing the F-35, that would potentially be worth adding – if you can direct us to a reliable source for that. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Added a ref from the first combat pilot to fly both Harrier and F-35, but I doubt it's really notable. Hcobb (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I just removed it couldnt see it being relevant or notable to the F-35. MilborneOne (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wingnuts of Oz are back

The Aussie press is picking them up again (they should know better than to take their tinfoil hats off): http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/16/2687895.htm?section=australia

The APA paper this is based on is here: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-140909-1.html

So let's take their word that the F-35 has a .1 m^2 return in the L-band. Looking at their chart shows that the F-35 "Baby Seal" is picked up at 30 nm and the Su-35 takes an AMRAAM at over 100 nm. Hcobb (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thats not only an overly simplistic way of looking at the scenario but not appropriate for WP. This is not a forum to discuss the issue.--Senor Freebie (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to UK F-35 carrier claim.

It has been claimed by an article in the Times newspaper that only one future aircraft carrier will operate F-35s. This had made it into this article, however, this claim was dismissed by the defence minister in Commons Hansard, 02 November 2009, Written Answers. http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/Commons/ByDate/20091102/writtenanswers/part010.html G. R. Allison (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

G. R. Allison (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Your ref says: "will be capable of supporting", not "Yes milord we will definitely be buying enough aircraft to outfit two such Air Groups". Hcobb (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Is one Times article based on a contingency really worth inclusion in this article? True or not shouldn't we wait for some sort of official word from the British MoD on numbers?G. R. Allison (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

An article that has been discredited in my opinion via this; http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/26/carriers_but_no_aircraft_plan/page2.html G. R. Allison (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The consensus among WP:SHIPS editors at the Talk:Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier#Prince of Wales to be a Helicopter carrier article has been to remove this as an unverified rumor. It was further expanded upon in the Sale to India? discussion on the same page. The same rationale applies here. Remember, WP is WP:NOTNEWS. - BilCat (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the info my friend. G. R. Allison (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

International participation, different F-35 for export ?

the following said that the export f-35 is "watered down" , i added the quote from Brigadier Gen. David Heinz, program executive officer, refuting this claim

Some of the partner countries have wavered in their public commitment to the JSF program, hinting or warning that unless they receive more subcontracts or technology transfer, they will forsake JSF for the Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab JAS 39 Gripen, Dassault Rafale or simply upgrade their existing aircraft. Furthermore, F-35 export competitiveness has been hurt by international buyers finding either its export variant too costly per unit or "watered down". While the F-16E/F costs $50 million per export copy, the F-35 is likely to cost between $65–120 million.[100],

Brigadier Gen. David Heinz, program executive officer for the F-35, said "I state categorically that I am not doing a different variant of aircraft for my international partners today,foreign countries who bought the F-35 would be subject to a U.S. disclosure process and U.S. export controls, but the aircraft being sold today were the same airplanes that were also being built for the U.S. military services" [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.70.101 (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Operators

Source: AFA Journal -- Sirak, Michael, Senior Editor (January 2010). "Air Force World: Air force Releases F-35 Basing Short List". AIR FORCE MAGAZINE, Journal of the Air Force Association. 93 (1). Air Force Association: p.16. ISSN: 0730-6784. {{cite journal}}: |first= has generic name (help); |pages= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

On October 29, 2009 the USAF announced the first 11 candidate bases that may receive the Lightning II; 250 to 300 aircraft are hoped to be active by 2017:

1. Hill Air Force Base, Utah

2. Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho

3. Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina

4. McEntire Joint National Guard Base, S.C.

5. Vermont Air National Guard Base, Burlington, Vermont

6. Florida Air National Guard Base, Jacksonville, Florida

7. Eglin Air Force Base, Florida - training

8. Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico - training

9. Luke Air Force Base, Arizona - training

10. Idaho Air National Guard, Boise, Idaho - training

11. Arizona Air National Guard, Tucson, Arizona - training

This info was removed from main article by BillCat. I replaced it here for further discussion and article improvement. LanceBarber (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

candidate bases that may receive is a bit speculative, it may be better to wait for an approved list before adding anything to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A sentence like the one above the list would be good in the Operational history section. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to include the list. The removed text stated "the USAF announced the first 11 candidate bases that may receive the Lightning", which really doesn't describe the situation completely. The source itself states "Air Force Releases F-35 Basing Short List". This is not the final selection list, which will be shorter narrowed down even more. That's the reason I removed it. I didn't add the cite in the main text at the time because it was late, and I was headed to bed, and I had hoped Lance could re-add it himself in the meantime, without the list. - BilCat (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Source on range not correctly cited

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/aeronautics/products/f35/A07-20536AF-35Broc.pdf or reference 214 lists a smaller combat radius and range then is listed in the article.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That source says '>' for greater than and the ranges given are slightly longer than the numbers given there. (Except for the B which seems to be wildly off.) Hcobb (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they don't exactly contradict each other due to the use of ">". The brochure file lists a date of May 2007. The Lockheed Martin F-35A/B/c specs pages do not show up on Archive.org until April 2008. So it appears the LM specs pages are newer. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Payload

The article show that the extarnal 6 hard points can carry 15000lbs and 4 internal 18000lbs The LM brochure prove the max. payload is 18000lbs. If it was like in this article the max payload would be 33000lbs. It would outperform each other fighter in the USAF if it is true. It has then the twice payload of a F16 F15 and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saiga12 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This article doesn't say that. The specs text says the external payload is 15,000 lb and with internal bays has "a total weapons payload of 18,000 lb". -Fnlayson (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure but this is a little bit confusing what about internal only 3000lbs ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saiga12 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The program brief (ref. 61) on pages 38-40, lists max capability for internal stations 4, 5, 7 & 8 for the F-35A. The total means it can carry up to about 5,000 lb internally. But the total payload is still the same. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Serial number Table in the Testing section

To the uninitiated reader of the encyclopedia, this table is not clear which of the alphameric character sequences in the table are serial numbers. Is it "F-35A", etc.? Or the "AF-1", "BF-1", etc.? Can someone clarify?

And then we need to find a source that actually supports these assertions. N2e (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

They seem more like ID codes. References for them will probably be difficult to find. The table was initially in a separate article that was redirected here. The info was going to be shortened/simplified for this article. The table was discussed at project page in December. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes a bit more sense. ID codes or "airframe designations" or something would seem more correct than "serial numbers." Thanks for the info about the provenance of the table. Seems like the normal Wikipedia verifiability policy is in play here. Let's leave the tags for now to see if someone is able to locate sources that support the assertions. If not, we can delete the claims in a few weeks. N2e (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

File:F-35 Lightning II cutaway.jpg

I'm rather tired from explaining this over and over again to User:Kozuch → about this file, can someone please take over and explain to him about his misinterpretation of the definition of unfree image as it is copyrighted and is own by Flight International - the publisher. Thank you. --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 09:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the image and marked it as a replaceable image. In some circumstances we could justify using a copyrighted image but not when a free image could be created. It would be hard to justify the use of this image. MilborneOne (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, I want you to tell me how to replace this image legally.--Kozuch (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Either find or create a free version, but note if you create a new drawing copyright still applies if you copy any parts of the original image/drawing which is why very few appear in wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a second cutaway image at http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_F-35B_Cutaway_lg.jpg , it is linked from http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-35-joint-strike-fighter-events-contracts-2008-updated-04659/ (just below middle), which is in itself a good F-35 archive for events in 2007-2008. That image may be linked to as an external image like the FG one. TGCP (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Secondary but worthy source?

The article already mentions that Gates is lopping heads and taking names over project delays but there is no description of exactly how the program is delayed. The article just assumes readers will not want to know this information. However, crikey, a semi-major news source in Australia is actually quoting figures, such as that "Only 16 test flights of 168 planned in 2009" were undertaken. The source can be found at: http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/01/22/joint-strike-fighter-shambles-continue/ Does anyone think this information is important for the article given this seems to be a fairly noteworthy delay. But thats just my take on it. Most military aircraft see delays and disappointmets. Maybe this is just part of that process.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

In my view Crikey is not a reliable source. I used to subscribe to it, but didn't renew my subscription due to its lack of basic fact checking and habit of reporting rumors as facts. Moreover, it isn't a 'news source', but rather a collection of opinion articles, and hence isn't a reliable source for anything other than the writers' views. The author of that article, Ben Sandilands, has had an axe to grind against the F-35 for a while, and basically reproduces whatever is published on Air Power Australia's website (itself not a reliable source in my view). Nick-D (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This is true, hence why I said secondary but worthy. If someone has the time maybe they can look into these delays, find what crikey / apa used as a source and append it to the section in the article about Gates criticising the program.--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Bill Sweetman over at Aviation Week is reporting of a a 13th month delay in initial operational test and evaluation of the F-35. This means testing will not be completed before Nov 2015. L.J. Brooks (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Comparability

Other than unknown stealth values for either aircraft, the F-35 in no way reasembles the function or construction of PAK-FA.
I put in a comparable Russian aircraft (long-range multi-functional front-line aircraft), but since it is in early design phase (proposed in 2006) and stealth aircraft design may take as many as 5 years (to 2011) before we see some wikiviable information and 8 years before we see prototypes (2015) I inserted a quip about level of development.
Is this fine? 99.236.221.124 (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No, of course it's not fine. Stop removing information that is already there by conensus. If the consensus changes to accept your proposed changes, then you can add it in. Until then, please stop being disruptive. There are only 3 known 5th gen fighters in the world under development orein service, and those are the PAK FA, F-22 and F-35. When the field broadens beyond technology demonstrators and proposals, then we can be more specific and whittle down the list. - BilCat (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of comparability, the article refers to the F-35 being four times more effective in this role, eight times more effective in that role, etc. It sounds impressive but what does that mean? I'm not familiar with a unit of measure applicable to "effectiveness." Could this comparison be made a little more meaningful? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.233.99.69 (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Article Reads like a timeline

Several sections of this article need serious work with respect to using prose. For example, the testing section is a pure timeline with most of the paragraphs denoting a single "milestone", most of which are non-notable. I know the F-35 is a current event, but listing the date at which the first military pilot flew it is excessive. Another example is what User:Hcobb just added. A line saying that a newspaper called the program in disarray. What standard does that meet for being included in Wikipedia?

Additionally, most of the "international participation" is a timeline as well, again, filled with non-notable news stories. For example, in the U.K. section, how is it notable that the U.K. agreed to purchase 3 test aircraft on March 18 2009? If it is notable, why it is notable should be explained in that paragraph.

Wikipedia is WP:NOT -- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't mind starting to work on some of these problems, but I know this article is closely watched, and I wanted to discuss it before making changes. Any thoughts? -SidewinderX (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Are we willing to "look back" and give a balanced view to past events as new information comes to light? The documents just uncovered by the newspaper cast doubt on a lot of the things we "knew" about the F-35 that just ain't so. Hcobb (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely! The point is that the article shouldn't read like a timeline of news headlines. I think a better way to talk about the testing delays, using the source you just added as an example, would be something like this: "The F-35 testing program has faced difficulties, many of them related to production problems that delayed the completion of test aircraft for up to 11 months (insert star-telegram ref)"

Writing in that manner will allow the testing delays/issues to be written in prose, and added to as information becomes available. The focus should be that testing was delayed; not that a newspaper reported the delay on Feb 10th or whatever. Does that make sense? If the article is written in prose, and not in timeline, it's easy to go back and add information as it becomes available; you're not locked in by the timeline.-SidewinderX (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Side that the sections need to be rewritten. However, the problem is not likely to go away anytime soon, judging by the other comment. As this is a problem on several other aircraft airticles, we should probably raise the subject at WT:AIR to get a sense of the project's opinion on this issue. - BilCat (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Articles should read more like a story than a series of headlines/blurbs. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Stories are written about events that have happened. I would agree with a "compaction" process where new content is appended first then worked into the narrative. This would split out the process of adding facts from the process of reaching a consensus on what those facts mean. Hcobb (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. When I get some time, if no one beats me to it, I'll start trying to compact some of this stuff, retaining the sources as is. Once the narrative is started, I think it will be easy to add to it without listing events-SidewinderX (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just tried to condense a large part of the testing section. The strategy that I'm using is to discuss the milestone chronologically at the top of the "testing" section, and then talk about the delays/program issues below that. Does that read fine? -SidewinderX (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Media

Small thing; the Wikimedia File:F-35 verticle landing.ogg has "F-35" in the description - it should be changed to "X-35" only, and in-article description should clearly state that the video shows X-35, not F-35. I don't know how to change it. Talk page of the file says that "requesting corrections " should be referred to article talk page, so here it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TGCP (talk • contribs) 11:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Article size

..is currently 119kB, and Wikipedia suggests splitting as per Wikipedia:Splitting#Article_size . I know that Refs are quite lengthy, and that actual article content is somewhat under 100kB, but the article seems overly long anyway. It seems that section "International participation" is the most likely candidate for spawning. What say you? The words "article size" do not appear in discussion archives. TGCP (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Discrepancy in specifications

There are different thrust specifications from different sources for F-35B :
Anti-F136 http://www.f135engine.com/proven-tech/engine_chacter.shtml
dry horiz 28,000 (128.1 kN) ? (CTOL/CV, perhaps also STOVL)
LiftFan 20,000 lbf + 3,700 (89kN + 16.5)
vertical exhaust 15,700 lbf (69.8kN)
combined liftfan+exhaust 39,400 lbf (175kN)
afterburner 43,000 lbf (191kN)

JSF.mil stats http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/mediakits/7764.zip
dry horiz 25,000 lbf (111kN)
LiftFan
vertical exhaust
combined liftfan+exhaust 39,700 lbf (176 kN)
afterburner 40,000 lbf (178kN)

GlobalSec http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-specs.htm
dry horiz 18 or 25,000 lbf (80kN) 25,000lbf=111kN
LiftFan
vertical exhaust
combined liftfan+exhaust 39,700 lbf (176 kN)
afterburner 35-40,000 lbf (155kN) 40,000lbf= 178kN

Then there is also http://www.rolls-royce.com/Images/LiftSystem_tcm92-6697.pdf

They could all be true - it may be a matter of how long these thrusts are available before engine overheats. But which ones do we present in the article ? TGCP (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

the 1 with 43,000 lbs of thrust is up to date, the rest are old stats P.S., just to add further clarification/confusion, according to this, http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/ , F-35's total Vertical thrust is >41,000lb, atleast how I interpreted the "F-35B Lightning II stealth fighter rode more than 41,000 pounds of thrust to a vertical landing today for the first time" I could be wrong though, as im not great with English—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, free hover requires thrust>=weight, and they probably weighed the plane afterwards. The ref is a little ambiguous - we don't know how much fuel was left so weight is unknown. 1 minute hover burns a lot of fuel so the pilot would have had to actually lower thrust during hover. A ref like http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/av-8b.pdf page 4 would go a long way. But since the aircraft is yet to enter combat stage, performance may not be final. TGCP (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The JSF.mil source is probably the "most reliable". It's a difficult spec to display because of the STOVL version. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Those are probably all correct at the time they came out. The jsf.mil specs are dated 2004. Not sure about the lift fan, but it seems the F135's thrust has increased. Or least it has gone from being listed at 40,000+ lb to 43,000 lb. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

F-35 logo - not for Wikipedia?

The F-35 logo on http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/down_logo.htm has restrictions on use - does that mean we cannot put the logo on Commons? TGCP (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you intend to print Wikipedia in B&W or color? That is the key question here. -SidewinderX (talk)

Both are available, so both can technically be uploaded to Commons - what goes on WP is another discussion (there are plenty of colour pictures). My point is, is it even within Commons policy to accept such conditions? Should we divide the discussion, so that logo upload is discussed over at Commons, and colour issue is discussed here? TGCP (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, is a color jpg. TGCP (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No need for maneuver?

Doesn't the aircraft still need to be pointed to aim the gun? Redhanker (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC) "Rather than maneuvering with thrust vectoring, or canards to line up the target directly ahead of the aircraft, like 4.5 Generation jet fighters, the F-35 does not need to point at the target to hit it."

Missiles are modern fighters' primary air-air weapon. The cannon is a secondary, fall back weapon. Look at the references after that quote for more info. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the gun differences between the F-22 and F-35. The F-35 "Baby Seal" has a ground attack cannon while the F-22 carries an air-to-air gun. Hcobb (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV complaint

Winslow T. Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at CDI has said that the F-35 Lightning II page on Wikipedia reads as if it were written by the defense contractors who build the aircraft. Hcobb (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sadly I think he has a point. The enthusiasts have the power on this page. Critisism, e.g. about overspending, delay and underperformance are being trivialised by the majority here. (By the way the Netherlands still has been promised 85 F35's for 5.5 Billion Euros, equal opportunities for its own defense contractors compared to US contractors, and entry into service in 2010). In my view this is not the problem of this page alone, but of (almost) all pages on modern weapon systems on Wikipedia. Arnoutf (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

USAF IOC SNAFU

2011 is the start of training for the the USAF F-35, but it will be 2015 before they have a unit ready to deploy.

See this (and many many other sources)

http://www.thedestinlog.com/news/afb-29420-nwfdn-document-eglin.html

Hcobb (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is your point? - BilCat (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That 2011 is NOT the date the USAF defines as their IOC. Hcobb (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Who says it does, and where? - BilCat (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Infobox among other places. I was the one who added the 2011 date and i'll admit I may have misinterpreted the source. Marcus Aurelius (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"Introduction" is a vague term. IOC, IIRC, refers to the aircraft being available in squadron strength - they aren't necessarily the same thing. It does need to be clarified though. - BilCat (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Entering service/fielding/IOC is after receiving aircraft. 2011 is when the USAF receives its 11 F-35As per this article, probably for training. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Infobox page states: "Introduction - Date the aircraft entered or will enter military or revenue service." That could mean IOC, but it doesn't have to. If we we want that to mean IOC here, it should state that for clarity. - BilCat (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a good recent article about what the USAF means. http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Features/modernization/Pages/box021910fraser.aspx Hcobb (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

F-35C Contradiction

Under the title F-35C it states, "The United States Navy will be the sole user for the carrier variant". But under the "United Kingdom" title it states, "But speculation mounts in 2009 that they may switch from the F-35B to the F-35C model". Contradiction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.48.187 (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Currently, as it says, a UK switch is just speculation. So, no, it's not a contradiction. If the UK (or anyone else) considers going to the C model, the article will have to be amended to reflect that. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Globe and Mail's $16 billion

We had a good, but sole, source for the $16 billion number. So this source was reffed with a note that they were our current source.

Therefore a tag team of editors jumped in. The first to change the source and the second to change the article because the randomly selected new source didn't support the sole source's claims.

Thanks. Hcobb (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to take flak on this one

I'd like to note this one over in an A-10 replacement section as that is the role (along with Harrier, but that's a sufficient flying death trap that anything is an improvement) where the F-35 takes the most flak (literally and figuratively), however the source is a bit squishy and lining the vulnerability up against the role smells like OR. So comments?

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/06/stealth-fighter-mods-make-it-more-likely-to-get-shot-down/

Hcobb (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be a blog or opinion (read: "hit") piece, so it's not really usuable. And the Harrier is "a sufficient flying death trap"?? Where are you getting that? Time 's 1974 "hit piece"? Anyway, the main point of the piece, whether the author knows it or not, and assuming he's accurate, is you get what you pay for. You want costs trimmed, there's going to be consequences. - BilCat (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone wants contract costs trimmed. We all want for Lockheed to deliver what was agreed upon for the price agreed upon. Imagine going to the butcher ordering some high quality steak, paying for it, to having it swapped at delivery for low grade minced meat - or being asked to triple your payment if you want steak after all. Arnoutf (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There are many factors involed in cost increases for high-technology items, only some of which the contracotr has control over. Some of it is related to the governments themselves, in changing requirements midstream, constant micro-managing oversight, budget cuts, contract postponements, reducing the original buy several times, and so on. There's enough "blame" to go around to everyone involved. - BilCat (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This is starting to look a little too much like a forum.Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Level 3 participant

What does that mean? NorthernThunder (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Price Tag

Your source states that one JSF costs 204.9 million dollars, unless I'm reading it wrong.

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll38/zomgzAJ/204million.jpg

Buffalosoldier92 (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

We use the "Flyaway Unit Cost ($ M)", which they note as being 128$ million. Hcobb (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that. Thanks. Buffalosoldier92 (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Since it is still 2010, the FY 2010 flyaway cost should be listed. That's $191.9M per budget request doc. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

JSF classification

I do believe there are more than one Fighter classified as a Joint Strike Fighter. It just bugs me that Joint Strike Fighters redirects here. Just a old USAF pilot with a hunch..... =)

Wyattwic 166.165.79.5 (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

WHen you figure it out, let us know, and we'll review the issue. Until then, the redirect is fine pointing here. - BilCat (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sensors and avionics

A bit of a dispute about the size of the qoute from Eric George in the sensors and avionics section. Cant see any value in what is a POV statement from somebody with a vested interest. Suggest the quote is deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That seems to sum it up pretty well. It probably should go as being POV/advert-like. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Indian STOBAR F-35C

This is a new source to me and the twin claims of STOBAR for the F-35C and F-35s already being offered to India seems a bit much.

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/06/indian-navy-fighter-rfi-lockheed-to.html

Here's a second source for some of it.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Lockheed-to-offer-fifth-generation-F-35-fighters-to-Navy/articleshow/6102973.cms

Hcobb (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Indians have asked for information and LM have responded with some, normal sales activity that goes on all the time and not particularly notable at this stage. MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

World Military Affairs

World Military Affairs magazine is owned by the PRC and its editor is often trotted out to give the unofficial state view of military matters to the foreign press. Both need articles. Hcobb (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Context, please? - BilCat (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's from my latest edit of this page.

Chen Hu, editor-in-chief of World Military Affairs magazine has said that the F-35 is too costly because it attempts to provide the capabilities needed for all three American services in a common airframe.

We need those two redlink pages to show exactly where Hu is coming from. Without this note we'd have zip about China's take on the F-35 "Baby Seal". Hcobb (talk) 07:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no, we don't need China's take on the F-35, unless they are planningto buy it. More WP:NOTNEWS violations. Thnaks for clearing up the obtuseness, but please be a little less obtuse next time, OK? - BilCat (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's where China is getting lost in the echo chamber (do they read this Wiki?): http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/07/07/prc-crows-pla-bumps-f-35/ Hcobb (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing cost increment

Per Flightglobal the F-35 acquisition cost has increased to $382 Billion USD. I'm guessing the lede now needs some changing since this changes unit cost among other things. Vedant (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Program costs are not flyaway costs. While you should add the lifetime cost of maintenance and gasoline when comparing automobiles you should not expect to see these listed on the sticker price. So the United States could spend $155 million per aircraft over the lifetime of the aircraft while buying each aircraft for only $60 million. Hcobb (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Still the US went into a binding contract with the Dutch to deliver the planes at about 215 MUS$ lifetime; while at the same time guaranteeing equal opportunity for Dutch contractors (violated as there always has to be one US contractor for each part, wich gives US contractors advantage - and even more so with the decision not to share software codes), while promising delivery from 2010, while promising a plane with less noise than F16, while promising a high payload, agile multitask fighter bomber with high stealth. I think it would be time for the US to renegotiate very very very humbly with its partners who invested a lot of tax payer money to participate in what is increasingly looking like a political popularity contest for within the US. (or in other words, give me my billion back or stick with the original contract) Arnoutf (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

F-35B becomes lemon

Too newsy to note?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/business/28fighter.html?src=busln Mr. Stevens said the parts that had failed on the version for the Marines included a fan that cools the engine and the hydraulic devices that open air-flow panels to provide the vertical thrust. He said valves, switches and power system components had also been unreliable.

Yea or nay? Hcobb (talk) 03:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, too newsy. Like any development program, components fail during test. That's why they test in the first place. -SidewinderX (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thrust/Weight Ratio

On all other jets the thrust/weight is calculated by dividing the thrust of the aircraft by the loaded weight. Using that formula the Thrust/Weight ratio should be calculated as .968, but on the page it is listed as .84. If the aircraft has a full external weapons loadout then I could see how the ratio would drop to .84; but since the plane is likely to be flying with little more than internal weapons and a drop tank shouldnt the ratio be changed? Nem1yan (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The numbers have changed some over time. The max thrust has increased from ~40,000 lb up to 43,000 lb over the 3-4 years. I updated the Loaded weights and T/W ratios using current data from Jane's. -fnlayson (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Isnt a bit pointless to use a source that you have to pay a grand to see. Especially when the source says that a jets weight increases by 83% in loaded configuration. Lockheed states that the jet can hold an additional 18,000lbs of armament.. so where is the other nearly 7,000lbs coming from? The F-22 (which undoubtedly has a higher payload) only increases 21,000lbs from its empty weight to its loaded weight, the F-15 increases by 17,000lbs, Eurofighter by 11,000lbs, and the Su-35 by 16,000lbs... why would the smaller F-35 increase by 24,000lbs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nem1yan (talk • contribs) 00:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

F-35A empty weight 29,300lbs + 18,498lbs internal fuel + 2 1,000lb jdams + 2 335lb aim-120c = 50,468lb loaded weight

thrust to weight ratio with full fuel = .85

thrust to weight ratio with 50% fuel = 1.04

specs taken from lockheed and http://www.jsf.mil/f35/f35_variants.htm. I'll update for F-35B/C later on Nem1yan (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/F35-030509.xml thrust to weight ratio from this article is also higher than the one from janes; and matches my calculations exactly.. im going to calculate for F-35 B/C and then update the page Nem1yan (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

F-35B empty weight 32,000lbs + 13,326lbs internal fuel + 2 1,000lb jdams + 2 335lb aim-120c = 47,996lb loaded weigh

thrust to weight ratio with full fuel = .90

thrust to weight ratio with 50% fuel = 1.04

F-35C empty weight 34,800lbs + 19,624lbs internal fuel + 2 1,000lb jdams + 2 335lb aim-120c = 57,094lb loaded weight

thrust to weight ratio with full fuel = .75

thrust to weight ratio with 50% fuel = .91 Nem1yan (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

British pull out

Yesterdays Sunday Times ran a story that the United Kingdom had plans to cancel the F35-B and order F/A 18's instead, thereby saving £100 million. Obviously this is just paper talk and accredited to an un-named defence source but its worth keeping an eye on. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually since it has a reliable source it should probably be added to the article, indicting the degree of uncertainty of course. You can note that this is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#New_rumors_on_RN_F-35 - Ahunt (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should hold off on reporting this for now. As I've pointed out on the linked talk page, the Times has published this type of rumor before, and nothing has come of it. - BilCat (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If this eventuates then it should be included, but until then it's just speculation (though it may belong in an article on the British Government budget cuts). The British Government will be announcing what it's cutting over the next few months and the situation will be clear from then. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, The Times is a reliable source. It's highly unlikely that their source, albeit anonymous, simply made up the discussion as reported, or that The Times would publish such a thing from someone who wasn't really a possibly informed leaker. Either way, the fact that such a thing is even reported in a top British broadsheet is significant for F35 and the debate on its retention. The timing is also not at all suspicious, coming as it does just after the MoD had been told it needs to fund Trident replacement out of its own pockets. I don't think there was any justification to revert my edit. Praetonia (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, the Times has published a rumor regarding the CVFs that got no significant coverage in other media, and has since proven to be totally untue, as written at that time. So yes, the Times would "publish such a thing from someone who wasn't really a possibly informed leaker". This has been largely ignored for the past two days by other reliable sources, both popular and industry, as in the previous case. I think we do well to wait a bit and see what happens, per WP:NOTNEWS. - BilCat (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael Byers is quoted why?

I was linked here from the Signpost, which is odd considering I just saw the mock-up yesterday in Ottawa and generally try to keep a hand in most of the Canadian aviation articles.

Anyway, is there any reason the quotes from Michael Byers is still in the article? He has no history in aviation writing, no background in the field, and is making what appear to be counter-factual statements. For instance, the F-35 has longer range on both internals and externals than the F-18's they would replace in Canadian service, and by the time they would enter service the F-18s will be long beyond their original airframe hours anyway (one of the many reasons the fleet is now only 80 aircraft).

The fact that someone has been quoted in the media is not an argument to take them seriously. I don't take these comments seriously, and to this eye they're nothing more than ill-informed talking points generated to get some press coverage. I suggest they be removed.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Taking Byers seriously or not, his points of criticism are basically what was stated for the media in the previous sentence. So I combined them and kept the reference to his article. -fnlayson (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That's because they're all copying each other. Byers is the reflection, not the source. In any event, the comments are specious and I think confuse more than they clarify. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Splitting Int'l Participation

I would like to bring up a point that User:TGCP brought up a couple months ago... this article is huge! The article is much larger than the reccomended size from Wikipedia:Article size, and the international participation section seems like one that could reasonable be split to a daughter article. There are two questions that need to be answered. First, is there consensus to split that section out from the main article? Second, what should the daughter article be named? International participation in the F-35 program? F-35 international participation? Something better?

Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right - the international participation section can probably be split out. Eventually as the nations acquire their own versions many will probably need individual type articles, too to deal with the acquisition histories and other details. - Ahunt (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This ain't your grandmother's Sukhoi. Even Israel isn't getting a variant of the standard aircraft. A British F-35A will be identical to a Turkish F-35A. There are no international variants. However each international's partner's air force future aircraft section could be used to host their own soap opera about how they are going to pay to play in the skies of the future. Hcobb (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

To follow the pattern of most topic splits of aircraft article, especially the "survivor" articles, Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II international participation would best fit that pattern. I think as a spearate article, it can afford to get quite long as each participant's decision making process is covered in more detail. Variant articles might still be warranted in the future, even if they are the same basic aircraft. We traditionally cover Canadian versions under their own designations, and this looks to be a pattern that the Canadian users will want to continue here (generally so they can use their own spelling conventions ;) !), and they'll probably have my support. Another option is a separate Operatos article once (if) the Frightning Too ever enters service. - BilCat (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That article name seems fine to me... lets get a few more opinons and we can break it off. In the exisiting article should we leave a sentence or two for each participant, or just a list of participants and levels? -SidewinderX (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The only way a simple list would work if would be if it were a list of links to articles like "Israeli F-35" ... Hcobb (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the national variants look like they will all be pretty similar right now (except Israel), but the national articles will probably detail the acquisition history, operational use, units and bases that operate the aircraft and that sort of thing. - Ahunt (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

So you suggest making this article an exclusive US run show? International participation has always been a core promise (and requirement) of this program, so splitting it off seems not to present an unbiased view on what is happening.

Of course most international cooperation sections are full of critisism on the program, which is underperforming, delayed and overly costly. Removing these sections would limit the serious problems in this program to the very limited "concerns over performance" section. So in my view this specific removal would bias the article to a pro F35 POV. Ok once we (the Netherlands) got our 85 units delivered between 2010-2015 for 85 Million US$ flyaway each, I'll happily agree to that, but otherwise this article needs to show some of the growing problems and the international commitment and growing protest. Arnoutf (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering when someone would bring up the US-only part, but burying criticism? Sorry, but that's not really is a helpful accusation. NONE of the editors here has suggested this in order to bury criticism, and the suggestion that we have that's close to is violating AGF. Even if you're just exaggerating to make a point, it isn't appreciated. If someone has a idea for how else to split the article, I'd be happy to hear and consider it. I looked at the article with just that in mind, but I could find not other obvious section that is as large. And contrary to "burying" criticism, putting the bulk of the internal section on its own page give great room for criticism to be added. Finally, there's plenty of criticism in the USA agaisnt the F-35, and that will evidently remain here, and I don't see that diminishing in the future either. If the US cancels the F-35 outright, the program ends, as I doubt the Netherlands, or any other coountry, would be willing to assume the burden and risk of managing the program instead of the US government. - BilCat (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hcobb -- I guess that makes sense, a simple list would look odd. I do think we can truncate each nation down to a couple of sentences, with the rest of the content in the daughter article.

Arnoutf -- I'm not trying to downplay international aspect of the aircraft, I'm just trying to reel in the size of the article. I think it makes more sense to break out the international participation section than it does the design section. Honestly, another good idea might be to break out the US Acquisition history to something like Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightening II acquisition history as well. -SidewinderX (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

@Bilcat, you are right that nobody here suggested this to bury criticism, and there is defitinely no bad faith involved. Nevertheless the majority of the editors on this article (which I have been tracking over the last 2 yrs or so) have the tendency to be more inclusionist regarding positive than negative information about the project. This is in itself no problem as the majority of the editors here are likely to be fascinated by the plane, but removal of the international cooperation section would have as unintended side effect that the majority of all critical information is removed. This is not the intention of any of the editors involved here, but is one of the (emerging) effects of any such decisions. My remark was meant to put this side-effect on the agenda, not to accuse any of the editors involved in the thread of anything but good faith. In other words, I would support reduction of international cooperation and split most of it off, but would like to keep at least the mention that the international partners are complaining about an ever-increasing list of contract violations by the producers. Arnoutf (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've made a first pass at thinning out the international participation section in a sandbox here -- User:SidewinderX/Sandbox/F-35 Subsection. I tried to take a lot of care and leave key facts (including controversy) while removing excess information. It's not as slim as I'd like it, but I think it's a good place to start. (What is in the sandbox would replace what's currently in the main article. What's currently in the main article would get split to a daughter article.) Thoughts? -SidewinderX (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

User:SidewinderX: Your proposal looks pretty good to me, the key thing is retaining the controversies and their details "somewhere" as I think that they will get more intense over time as costs escalate and the politics get more polarized over the aircraft. It is likely that at least one country will back out at some point and we need to have all the background cataloged when that blows up. I do think that your sandbox proposal can be thinned down to a one or two sentence summary for each country and then a {{Main| }} template leading to the appropriate section in the daughter article. - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, are there any more opinions on this before I go ahead and split some of the international stuff out? -SidewinderX (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To Arnoutf: Then that last part is all you should have said here. It may have slipped your notice, but we were already discussing the amount of content to leave on the article before you posted your comments. You simply could have contributed to that discussion, rather than responding to the proposal in the way than you did, which really didn't address the specifics at all. So join the discussion, but please leave out the theatrics. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What will be left in this article? Name of country (as a link to subarticle), number of aircraft to be purchased and est date of delivery? Hcobb (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

As was linked above, User:SidewinderX/Sandbox/F-35 Subsection is what I am proposing to leave. I would like to eliminate much more of it, but I don't want to be accused of supressing controversy. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Joint Strike Fighter Program could be used instead of starting a new article for this. -fnlayson (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article is more about the program preceeding the actual design/sale/etc. of the F-35. I'm not sure if that would be the appropriate place to put it. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Right, but it is not that long and expanding its scope to cover the current overall program is not a stretch. Well whatever.. -fnlayson (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

JSF description says current phase is the "System Development and Demonstration (SDD)" part of the program, so technically IntPart could be placed in JSF. I support splitting F-35, but I have no opinion on whether to place IntPart in JSF or by itself. TGCP (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not fix the current article to drop all those intermediate stages in international sales in favor of whatever the current status is? If needed these bits can reemerge in the X country Air Force future aircraft sections. So Canada is a corrupt puppet regime? Fine, put it under Canada. Hcobb (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

F-35I

Should we start calling Israel's second batch F-35I, or do we have to wait a few years? Hcobb (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

We have to wait until reliable sources indicate that the "F-35I" designation is actually being used by Israel, LockMart, and/or the US Gov't/USAF. That could be yesterday or never. - BilCat (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The initial F-35I will represent standard F-35A models. However, the F-35I acquisition agreement is opening opportunities for the installation of Israeli systems in future production batches. Reliable? Flayer (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Does the Lamestream media count?

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=11405849 Israel to Purchase F-35I Fighter Jets From US

Hcobb (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

They ordered twenty, on us: http://defensetech.org/2010/08/16/israel-places-order-for-20-f-35-jsf-u-s-picks-up-the-tab/ 74.180.130.219 (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of the F-35I term.

The F-35I meme has gone lamestream, so we're stuck with it for all Israeli JSFs. I don't seem any point in talking about initial plain jane planes as being called F-35A with later secret sauce added aircraft as being called F-35I as we all know that whatever aircraft they get will all in the fullness of time be upgraded to the same configuration. (Except possibly for a few training aircraft.) So all Israeli JSFs are F-35Is, unless some of them are F-35Bs. Hcobb (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Bird Strike Testing

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/07/video-f-35-birdstrike-test-via.html

this should seriously be added somewhere. =D Nem1yan (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

All aircraft undergo this type of testing to some extent, so it's not unique to the F-35. Perhaps it could go in an article about bird strikes, assuming the video is properly licensed. - BilCat (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Under license subcontracting

How accurate is the section under Turkish participation stating that "After 2013, TAI will produce 100% of the F-35 under license from Lockheed Martin Corporation"? I have been unable to find a verifiable source for this claim, but it seems to be accepted as gospel given TAI's previous role as a subcontractor for the F16. Can someone clarify this please and ideally provide a link? Memzey (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

They will assemble the aircraft from parts that are mostly produced elsewhere. Hcobb (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Cost of F-35s

In the info-box it gives a figure of $191 million per aircraft (Flyaway cost) yet the Canadian order of 65 F-35s suggests only $130 - $135 million per F-35. Why is this? Recon.Army (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The Canadian purchase price has been reported as Cdn$9B (Cdn$16B with all support, parts etc factored in). Cdn$9B for 65 aircraft is Cdn$138 each. At the current exchange rate that is about US$133M each. It is probable that as an industrial partner in the program Canada gets a special price that wouldn't be offered to a country looking to just buy some without industrial investment in the program. - Ahunt (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The $192M flyaway cost is a 2010 value. Flyaway cost for future years will decrease as more are built. It is to decrease to about $90M following the USAF production run of some 1400 F-35As. -fnlayson (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That is the assumption anyway, so far the F35 project has not been characterised by prices going down. Arnoutf (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Use the refs Luke! The F-35 has seen actual costs going down over time, but still failing to match advertised costs. Hcobb (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

....compared to contract costs, indeed. Arnoutf (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/australia-flies-away-with-strike-fighters-for-60m-each/story-e6frea8c-1225909593661 "Your average cost of buying your fleet of aeroplanes will be at that number ($60 million) or maybe slightly below it," Mr Burbage said.

The $60 million dollar question that will not die. Hcobb (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

One paragraph for Steinitz please.

The Steinitz section spends three paragraphs going over his basic complaint that too many of the American dollars will be spent in America rather than Israel. Simply stating each point only once will get this down to a single paragraph. Hcobb (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact, Steinitz (and the finance ministry) has 3 different points:

• The decision about the purchase is too important financially to be left to the defense establishment alone;
• The planes themselves would be purchased with US military aid funds, but the Israeli infrastructure needed to support them would not;
• There would be a US ban on installing Israli systems on the planes - both those intended for Israel and theose intended for other countries, which would be a "major blow" for the Israeli defense industry;

I have trimmed down the paragraphs, while also re-arranging them according to those 3 points (so that each paragraph would have a distinct topic/point). I apologize if my original edit (the insertion) would have you believe that Steinitz only had one "complaint"...PluniAlmoni (talk) 09:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good start. Now can I withdraw my edit quoted below, because your new section essentially repeats the same points, but you've provided a more recent source.

In 2010 Israel added the additional condition for a US-run logistics and maintenance center in Israel[219] and the United States refused to provide Israel with a specially modified experimental F-35 that could be flown to develop Israeli modifications.[220]

Hcobb (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Cirque du Soleil

Obviously these two articles need a cross reference. Not for being overpriced and more flash than substance, but rather for stage work.

Really.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/the-future-flight-fight-club/story-e6frea8c-1225911070527 http://www.usasymposium.com/ibconference/Conference%20PDF/Plenary%20Session%2015Jun%20LHAuditorium/Neri%2015Jun%20Presentation%202%20LHAuditorium.pdf

Hcobb (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Israeli Wings

I don't think this is quite solid enough to list yet.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67T2JX20100830 Israel is in talks to build the wings for about a quarter of the United States's new F-35 stealth fighter aircraft, an Israeli official said on Monday.

Hcobb (talk) 04:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Comparable aircraft

It is not correct to compare this aircraft with the PAK FA. The PAK FA is more designed for air superiority, the F-35 is principally a ground attack plane.--Mr nonono (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Both aircraft have been called multi-role, over and over again. Hcobb (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

But when did the F-35 get called a super-cruising, 2 engine, heavy, air supremacy fighter?--Senor Freebie (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If F-35 is comparable to PAK FA then it is comparable to F-22 too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.67.65 (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be compared to either, until they make 5th generation some time next decade. Supercruise is an outgrowth of 4th generation hyper agility. Hcobb (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The F-35 is a fighter, it's replacing the F-16 and one of its payload options is 4 AIM-120. It's as much of a ground attack plane as the current F-16. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.41.159 (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Digital Thread Technology

This one is a little too geek for even me, but can it be used?

http://www.onlineamd.com/amd-080910-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-digital-thread.aspx The F-35 Lightning II design takes clear advantage of a common digital thread technology that has allowed unprecedented engineering and manufacturing connections, facilitating dramatically expanded automation for military fighter manufacturing and assembly. Digital thread implies that 3D exact solid models from engineering design are used directly by manufacturing for NC programming, coordinate measurement machines (CMM) inspections, and tooling (which are also 3D solid models).

Hcobb (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand the article correctly, but I am surprised if F-35 is the first jet fighter to be produced with all-digital data from designer's hand to milling cutter and measurer. Even back in 1997 when Rhino was churned out, CAD/CAM and numerical control was common, and they were integrated in 3D in advanced fields such as aerospace. The article could be correct, as there is a difference between being theoretically able to, and actually doing something, as A380#Production_and_delivery_delays shows. TGCP (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The difference here is that everybody who is building parts for the aircraft, from all those companies all around the globe, are using the same digital models. This is the first globalization jet fighter. Hcobb (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That would probably be new, and notable, but article says "seamlessly used by partners and suppliers around the world", not "seamlessly used by ALL partners and suppliers around the world", and article is by primary source LM through a magazine, don't know if that's enough? Production aspect is rarely shown in WP articles, it's about time. Isoroku Yamamoto knew the value of production capability. TGCP (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

new 50,000lb thrust specs O.O

aviation week article

[Pratt & Whitney is upping the ante in the ongoing F-35 Joint Strike Fighter engine war by revealing the F135 has achieved combat-rated thrust 20% higher than the specification.

The disclosure raises the demonstrated sea-level thrust for the F135 above 50,000 lb.]

O  !!!!

F-35A will have 12% excess thrust, putting it into 48,000lb thrust range!!

• faints* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.223.136 (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Some other reports are saying that the F-136 is the engine achieving higher thrust ratings.. Either way, as long as the nozzle doesnt get in the way then the jet is going to be producing a tremendous amount of thrust. I'd still wait for more clarification before adding this to the article though --Nem1yan (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You read it wrong. The F135 has 12% thrust margin at high Mach. There is no way to figure how much thrust it is making underthose conditions from public data (thrust is not constant with speed/altitude). F135 is still a 43,000 lbf engine. However, we now know that it is capable of reaching 50,000 lbf if a customer wants to run it that way (most likely at the cost of engine life). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.41.159 (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Wikipedia controversy section

I have added a small section on this to the article, since it is now a national news story. There is a precedent for including this sort of story, incidentally involving the same government, as can be seen at Jim Prentice#Wikipedia controversy. - Ahunt (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure it warrants a mention per WP:NOTNEWS, especially in its own section, but I'm not going to raise a stink if it's included in the article either.

However, it certainly is worth noting here on the talk page as a warning to such vandalistic practices. I'm surprised the (Canadian) media picked up on it, but perhaps it was a slow news month? - BilCat (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that it might reduce the vandalism. It is worth noting that the vandalism has continued today since the article was unlocked, but this time the IP address is from Calgary. I think this story may grow over time as the Prentice story did. - Ahunt (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this story has been run in many national media outlets, including The Ottawa Citizen and the Vancouver Sun. - Ahunt (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a reference in the Canada section to an article called: "Williams, Alan S. Reinventing Canadian Defence Procurement: A View From the Inside. Kingston, Ontario, Canada: Breakout Education Network, Queen's University, 2006." One of the items referencing this appears to be an opinion by the author that Canada does not need the fighter because the rational for buying it is purely economical. Since there are many others proposing other reasons including 'interoperability' with the United States Air Force, this lends me to believe this is purely opinion and not fact. It also appears to me that the referenced article is an opinion piece on how the military *should* purchase equipment with some historical references used to try to bolster the author's point. I don't believe opinions should be in a Wikipedia article, nor should facts be assumed in a Wikipedia article based on an article that mainly an 'opinion piece'. I will remove the line in question if no-one here can provide a valid argument against doing so in the next couple of days. Theshowmecanuck (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem presenting an opinion in a Wikipedia article, but it has to be clearly indicated as an opinion, which that statement isn't. I will fix that problem and you can see if that addresses your concerns. - Ahunt (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This section doesn't belong in this article and needs to go. It presents nothing material to the F-35. If anything it belongs in an article about the public relations of the DND or something, but it really has no place in this article simply because this article was the one being vandalized. If the "scandal" brought out notable opinions about the F-35, by all means cite relevant interviews, press releases, quotes, etc but don't make it a meta-story here. The vandalism itself has nothing to do with the F-35. Endasil (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I would argue it does belong here for just the reasons that you have pointed out, the Wikipedia story has become a huge national news story in Canada and has attracted a lot of criticism of the aircraft, the procurement and the government's handling of the entire contract and the secrecy and spin involved. The Wikipedia controversy has made the F-35 contract an enduring issue beyond the initial announcement here and has become a catalyst drawing more attention to the aircraft itself and its shortcomings for use in Canada. In the long run it may end up being a critical factor in actions by future governments in reviewing the contract. I would also point out that there is a precedent for including this sort of story in an article at Jim Prentice#Wikipedia controversy. - Ahunt (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a big deal for Canadian defense policy, but for the entire F-35 project it's a storm in a bedpan. There needs to be a link here to a section under Harper's page as the event is newsworthy to the extent that it plays off his governance style. Hcobb (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As I have indicated I think this needs to be in the article on the Canadian F-35 variant when that article is split off this one. - Ahunt (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This story is proving to be more than just a temporary news item and continues to grow along with the controversy. Ottawa Citizen, Saturday 31 July 2010: Wikipedia jet edits traced to CFB Cold Lake - Internet search engine tracks down three computers - Ahunt (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Links to Canadian Wikipedia controversial edits

• 1st to 5th, and 7th edits are all the same attempt to remove content [3]
• 6th - Added insults [4]
  • "The opposition tends to overreact and cancel contracts without just cause or reasoning setting back the procurement of needed equipment years (decades in the case of the CH124 replacement - bought in the mid-sixties)."
• 8th - Various insults [5]
• 9th - Insult [6]
  • "Opposition Liberal Party Leader Michael Ignatieff, who has six toes on each foot,..."

There you have it. Seems like a non news story to me. Probably some co-op student in the IT department. --Pdelongchamp (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The story has been picked up by every news outlet in Canada today - it is on the front cover of the Ottawa Citizen newspaper. If it is just some coop student then he or she has attracted quite a firestorm over this issue. - Ahunt (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Could you translate "coop student" into American English? I'm not exactly certain what it refers to, but I assume it's "co-op", not "chicken coop". Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There are probably other WP articles where details on this story would be appropriate, but here, it's not really about the F-35 itself. It does illustrate the controversy the selection of the F-35 in Canada has couaysed, and a one-line mention in the Canadian section, perhaps with an n internal link to an articel covering it in detail, could be a workable compromise. - BilCat (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"Co-op student" or "Coop student" = "Intern". There certainly seems to be an intense number of IPs and brand new accounts that want to remove all the criticism from this article - it seems to prove the value of the National Post story itself. I am thinking that if Canada does go ahead and procure these aircraft that there will be a separate article on that model CF-XXX, along with a section on the procurement controversy. I do agree that this should be spelled out there when that split occurs. In the meantime I think it is worth keeping the refs and some description of the controversy here so it can be expended in that later article, unless you think that the time is right now for a Canadian F-35 purchase controversy article now? - Ahunt (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

the cbc is reporting this as well now... haha someones gonna lose their job [7]Noted99 (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I read that CBC article - the reporter got reactions from Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton. This is turning out to be a very big story here. There are indications that there will be follow-up coverage as some reporters are digging further into it. Sorry but I have to add some quotes to the section from that CBC ref. - Ahunt (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be rather over-blown. Three(!) edits to the article apparently by a single person might, at most, warrant a sentence in the article. A three paragraph sub-section almost as long as the previous coverage of Canada's involvement is clearly over the top. There was a similar minor scandal here in Australia about public servants making what appeared to be politically motivated edits to Wikipedia a couple of years ago (including Department of Defence employees). This also caused sections to be added to the relevant articles, which were removed within weeks by established editors per WP:NOT#NEWS and the overall unimportance of the topic (it took a few days for the Australian media to realise that there's a difference between government employees vandalising Wikipedia on the Government's orders [which would have been a scandal, but didn't actually happen] and public servants editing during their breaks [which was what was going on]). Nick-D (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you, but as the CBC reports the opposition leaders have taken the govt to task over this so it has now become a national issue tying Wikipedia to the procurement of these aircraft. Ignatieff has indicated that he believes this indicates that the government is hiding information about this contract, etc. - Ahunt (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The opposition in Australia also made similar comments. It blew over within 48 hours. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We might want to keep an eye out for edits such as this one by a registered, but not very active, user. Might even be worth a CU, given the publicity. - BilCat (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Bill - I saw that one too, thanks for reversing it! I would recommend we leave the section in for now and see how this aspect of the story looks in the slightly longer run, in a week or two. I don't see any rush to remove it right now. As stated before, I think it definitely will belong in the article on the Canadian F-35 variant, if procurement proceeds, as an integral part of the controversy the aircraft has generated. - Ahunt (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Insertion of qualifying facts to counterbalance biased or incomplete statements is not 'vandalism' as you have previously stated. This is Wikipedia, not your personal webpage. As the Wikipedia notice states, "If you do not want your writing to be edited [...], then do not submit it here." Create your own personal webpage and link it to the Wikipage if you wish. But calling legitimate contributions vandalism is simply disingenuous. 13:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.166.251 (talk)

You've made one edit under the same IP address to the article, which was reverted with the comments "unsourced and not relevant to this aircraft". No one claimed it was vandalism, but it doesn't belong here either, as it's opinion/Original research. - BilCat (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This could be a good place to put the Pending changes mechanism on a trial run if things get hairy. --Natural R_X 16:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Under the current rules, we'd have to get it semi-protected first, then apply for Pending Changes. Frankly, given the publicity in Canada, I'm surprised the page isn't getting swamped with edits, but for now, it's manageable. - BilCat (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't need semi for application of PC anymore IIRC - you can put in any requests at WP:RFPP. Connormah^talk 23:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I stopped watching the Pendning changes talk pages after it became a hang-out for people who hate the trial and are trying to torpedo any fiurther implementation and to make sure the trials fail. I'm glad to see that pages can be adding direclty now, as I didn't think it woukld ever happen. - BilCat (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally the article has now been move-protected as explained here due to the high degree of ongoing media attention. - Ahunt (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

For a national controversy, it still hasn't garnered a lot of edits, not into the hundreds anyway. Let's be thankful! - BilCat (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a small country. How small? Well things like Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence have been sitting around redlinked for ages. Hcobb (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

30 million-plus people isn't that small! And it only takes a few dedicated "users" on dynamic IPs to make trouble on a page. - BilCat (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

33,311,400 (2008), estimated 34,400,00 (2010): who knows what the final total will be with the new census being seriously compromised. Regardless, the tracing of the controversial Wikipedia edits has been confirmed to be from a DND computer at CFB Cold Lake, the home of CF-18 units. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC).

This "controversy" itself has nothing to do with the F-35 itself and as such should not be included in its page. This is an issue with the DND of Canada, Canadian politics, and wikipedia itself. I think it should be completely seperated from this article. Perhaps a link to it within the Canada section... The actual controversy about purchasing the f-35 should stay, but this wikipedia controversy has nothing to do wit the f-35 itself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.195.107.238 (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense and I agree with most of that. But linking to another article probably won't help as the F-35 Canadian Wikipedia controversy text does not warrant its own article. Department of National Defence (Canada) or other Canadian Government wiki article would be the only other relevant articles for it. -fnlayson (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that this is not an F-35 story - it is intimately connected to the government's attempts to sell this purchase to Canadians, as the refs cited explain and as opposition politicians have also expressed. Also as can be seen in Jim Prentice#Wikipedia controversy these sorts of Wikipedia controversies are normally reported in the main article that was affected, because Wikipedia and this article is very much part of the controversy of the aircraft purchase. Hence I believe it should remain in the article. - Ahunt (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent deletions

A new editor has taken to blanking the section and insisting that reverting to the original, well-supported section is vandalism. From the above "string", it is clear that this controversy has gone beyond the standard wikiedia article and has resulted in a national and international controversy over the removal of information. Until this issue is resolved, this section is the only place where the DND issues are being discussed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a strong consensus to retain this information and this one IP 69.11.42.61 (and one other 71.7.157.193) seem to be bent on removing it. There are no grounds to remove it for Wikipedia policy reasons and it is very well referenced and has attracted continuing national news coverage over many weeks, so is obviously thus quite notable. The removal looks like it is due to POV political reasons, which to my mind makes the removals plain vandalism and in fact a continuation of the issue reported itself, in other words the people that are the subject of the story don't like it being reported. - Ahunt (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason they're giving is that it's completely extraneous and irrelevant information about some Canadian politicans and Canadian wiki editors. I couldn't agree more; this is a totally unimportant incident and labeling the removal of it as "vandalism" and motivated by "POV political reasons" seems to be an assumption of bad faith. Have the investigations demonstrated that it goes beyond one or two people working at Canadian military bases? - It not, there is no story here. I'm Australian BTW, so am not motivated by Canadian political POV. Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The refs show that the investigation is ongoing and that there will likely be further on this story over time. The entry in this article will need to be adjusted depending on the outcome of those investigations, of course. Incidentally this story is being run in almost every newspaper and media outlet in Canada so many dozens more refs could be added to those already in the article. This continues to be an important national news story in Canada over the last month that has engaged the leaders of national political parties and the government. Because of the sole sourced terms of the purchase and also because of the issues surrounding the purchase, including this controversy, the opposition has indicated they will review the purchase if they form a government. I think this all adds up to this being a notable issue. At least three editors have reverted removals of this section as vandalism, so there seems to be a consensus there that the section should stay and that the removals are disingenuous. - Ahunt (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide some recent references to demonstrate that the Wikipedia edits are still considered a big deal? I know that Canadian politics has higher ethical standards than Australian politics, but I really find that surprising and a Google News search of 'Canada F-35 Wikipedia' doesn't return anything more recent than this 2 August story which states that the edits were made by members of the civil service (which hardly supports claims of a government conspiracy, particularly in light of the poor quality of the edits). It certainly doesn't seem like three paragraphs worth of controversy from this side of the Pacific - a sentence or two at best perhaps. The current coverage appears to be excessive and violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT#NEWS. Nick-D (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are two Ottawa Citizen and Toronto Star, two major newspapers (and independently owned, so not just repeats of the same story within the same media chain) that show that this story is still getting national attention a month after the story first broke. As I indicated above once the story is resolved (in terms of the DND investigation) then it can probably be cut down (or even expanded) depending on the outcome, but I think it is premature to do that at this point. - Ahunt (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. I'm still not convinced that this incident warrants so much coverage here, particularly in comparison to the overall length of the Canadian section of the article. Moreover, the length seems to be pre-empting some kind of significant finding from the investigation which seems most unlikely from those news stories which basically say that a single member of the military made the edits. I really think that a mountain has been made of this molehill and it should be chopped back to a couple of sentences (one on the edits and the opposition's claims and one on the results of the investigation). The current material dwarfs what seems to be the much more significant debate over whether the F-35 is the right aircraft from Canada (which I imagine - and hope - has been a much more long-running issue than this nonsense). Nick-D (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally I do agree with you that this controversy in combination with the other controversies (like the Israeli issues) are taking up too much room in what is supposed to be an "aircraft type" article. I don't think cutting the controversies is the answer though and above I have argued that these should be split out into a new article. As you can see this was discussed, but has not occurred yet. It seems pretty clear that the F-35 is going to be a controversial aircraft in many country's service and there will probably be at least one country that cancels their participation, creating a lot more controversy as the remaining costs get reapportioned. I renew my assertion above that it is probably time to split the procurement issues into a new article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The incident of "Wikipedia" cleansing by DND personnel itself is the most relevant part of the Canadian controversy and the recent actions of the IP appear to be a blatant attempt to do the same, wipe out all mention of the controversy. Rather than one individual, there appears to be two separate sources now identified as personnel from CFB Cold Lake and 1 CAD. Due to the nature of the politics involved in Canada's decision to purchase the F-35, there has been considerable effort by the government and like-minded souls to whitewash any opposition to the purchase. A series of unusual aerial intercepts by CF-18s recently has highlighted the need for the Forces to protect the borders, although the Russian Bears were operating in international airspace. Nonetheless, besides the coverage in local and national sources, the effort by individuals to "rewrite" Wikipedia has garnered international press attention. I agree that there is some redundancy in relating the incident but it is not of sufficient merit to warrant an article of its own, this being the logical place to "site" the related information as it develops. Editors had already cut out some of the older information but it is still an ongoing story, and besides, after extensive discussion, it was a consensus decision to retain this section. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC).

I agree that this one Canadian procurement story is too small for its own article, at least at this point. I was trying to argue above that all the various national procurement issues should be split out from the aircraft technical and development text and into a single F-35 Lightning II procurement (or similarly titled) article. - Ahunt (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, hot off the press a new editorial by the Ottawa Citizen covering the Wikipedia controversy and another editorial The Russians aren't coming from today, covering the F-35 procurement that shows how the Wikipedia controversy and the procurement in general remain issues in Canada. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed the section on splitting the International participation section, only 2 users provided any real objections at all. So, I do beleive we have a consesnus to split the section off to its own page, it only needs to be done. Also, the naming od the sub-article needs to be decided, but it made more difficult by the fact that there is no single title that is redily apparent. However, that can be settled later, and redirects made to other options. I think F-35 Lightning II procurement or F-35 Lightning II international participation are good choices. There is a sandbox at User:SidewinderX/Sandbox/F-35 Subsection, but it's a couple of weeks old, and so would need updating first. There is another option of attaching the split section to the existinf JSF program article, but that can be discussed later too. The important thing is to get the split done as soon as possible, as the controversies aren't going away, but are really tangental to the aircraft itself.

As the the nature of the deletions, given the fact that discussions are occuring,and that the consensus has been to keep the section, any removal of the sections are definitley disruptive and against consensus - that's generally treated as vandalism, even if it's not the exact definition of it. Whatever you want to call the deletions, they aren't allowable by WP policy. - BilCat (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles that are not well named will not be well managed. If a specific country has sufficient issues with an aircraft then sure split off an article for them that is country X's aircraft Y page and link it from both the aircraft type and nation's air force pages. Otherwise we may just be piling on cruft that can get squished down to a paragraph or two. Hcobb (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Title has nothing to do with the state of an article. It will be well managed or not solely on the basis of whether or not editors care to see that is it well managed. And that last statement? Wow, funny! how ironic. - BilCat (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Dont have an opinion on the split but if sub-articles are created can they match the parent like Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II sub-article name. MilborneOne (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to wait a week here and see if there were any further comments or objections to splitting out this section as discussed here and above. There being none raised I will proceed, using MB1's nomenclature to move the procurement text to Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement. - Ahunt (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Vertical Takeoff

This is only a minor detail. As far as I know, the F-35 can takeoff vertically (thrust > weight), but not transition to forward flight (move rear nozzle up, lose thrust balance, plane topples and crashes). I recently edited a section of the article to remove the mention of vertical takeoff, but it was undone. Since the plane either can't or won't takeoff vertically in a realistic situation, is it still correct to say it is capable of vertical takeoff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.41.159 (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

As per referenced sources, both X-35B and F-35B have performed vertical take-off and transition to conventional flight, and back. F-35B is capable of doing this with some (but not full) warload. Whether this ability will be used frequently or rarely remains to be seen. The Harrier, on the other hand, is practically a STOVL, not a VTOL. TGCP (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The trick is to move forwards in the same fashion as a helicopter does. The aircraft has more thrust than weight so can afford to lean forwards a little bit and use some of the excess thrust to accelerate while the rest keeps it in the air. Once it attains sufficient airspeed for wing lift it can fold up all the VTOL parts. Hcobb (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

TGCP, I'm only asking because there are 300 sources, but can you pick out the source(s) that has the transition from vertical to forward flight for the F-35B (not X-35)? As for the Harrier, its VTOL ability is well documented.

Hcobb, the F-35B needs to drop down to about a half tank to get to 1 T/W without weapons. At a quarter tank, it gets a more plausible vertical takeoff T/W (though with limited fuel), but there are two hurdles to deal with. First is that the thrust (and wing lift) is going to slightly decrease with altitude, and the second is that plane has no way to maneuver forward while keeping its balance or better than 1 thrust. Basically, the plane would have to get very high (made difficult by decreasing thrust with altitude), then dive until the wings become useful (dangerous). Pending TGCP's source either by him providing it or me going back and scanning the article, I'm skeptical. I agree that vertical takeoff could be technically possible, but the conditions seem to be a bit unreasonable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.41.159 (talk)

You seem to have some very specific details on the "problems" of the F-35 and vertical take-off. It would be useful to know your specific sources for this info. The aircraft has made vertical teke-offs and transitioned from vertical to horizontal flight, so it's more the "technically' possible, it's been performed. Any VTOL aircraft that is capable of a rolling takeoff can carry more in that mode than a straight vertical takeoff - that's physics. EZven helicopters can do that. The Harrier is a VTOL aircraft that can make short take-oofs, and so is almost always used that way so it can carry a heavier load. As far as I know, the F-35 will be used the same way, and there was never any intention or requirement that it carry its full load in vertical take-off mode. - BilCat (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course STO allows more weight at take off than VTO, but that's not the issue here. The F-35 did not have a VTO requirement, and given its fully loaded T/W, it would be impossible to VTO when fully loaded. As for my sources, I'm not getting this from one specific article or paper, it's my understanding after researching the F-35 over a long period of time combined with some reasoning.

After doing some math however, it seems like VTO may be easier than I thought. My own rough calculations: putting the nozzle at 20 degrees from vertical gives 4 mph/s horizontal acceleration and the loss of 2,000 lbs of lift from the fan/nozzle does not take away from the F-35's >1 T/W at sea level with a greatly reduced payload. VTO for the F-35 still isn't confirmed though. I guess for now, I'll just drop it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.41.159 (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in that refs do not show F-35 Vertical Take-Off.

The reason for F-35B to exist is significantly improved fighting capability over the Harrier - this goes right back to before LiftFan was invented in the 1980es, right after first trials with AV8B showed disappointing performance. This capability, in VTO or STO, remains unproven.

The weight margin of VTOL jets to use for fuel and weapons can be seen like this :
Max takeoff weight, vertical / Empty weight:
AV8B : 20,755 lb (9,415 kg) / 13,968 lb (6,340 kg) -> 6,800 absolute, 1.46 relative
F-35B: 39,700 lbf (176 kN) / 32,000 lb (14,500 kg) -> 7,700 absolute, 1.24 relative
I agree that the margin of F-35B is surprisingly small, and not much bigger than AV8B, however, the F-35B has since increased its vertical thrust to 41,000 lbf.

It is particularly the inability of the Harrier to use new electronics (part of the dead weight) and to bring back weapons to Vertical or Short Landing that the F-35B seeks to remedy. Like the Harrier, F-35B is unlikely to use VTO, but unlike the Harrier, F-35B should routinely use V/SL with weapons. TGCP (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll look around to see if I can find a source to cite, but I will point out that the F-35B has been pointedly called at "STOVL" aircraft (Short TakeOff and Vertical Landing) rather than a V/STOL aircraft (Vertical or Short TakeOff and Landing). -SidewinderX (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Israeli F-35

This site: [Haaretz] has an article about the purchase of this fighter by Israel.Agre22 (talk) 12:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

One thing we're not showing at the moment is the internal conflict inside Israel for money.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/asd/2010/07/29/01.xml&headline=Israel Debates Deterrence Vs. Cost On F-35 “The cost is huge and there are other needs,” says retired Army Maj. Gen. Giora Eiland, a former head of the national security council of Israel and the current chairman of a committee investigating the flotilla incident off the coast of Gaza. “If we continue to use the very advanced [versions of the] F-16 and F-15 and upgrade some of the systems, we could save so much money that we could buy other important systems like ground-based missiles. And you can use more [air-launched] standoff weapons because they have extreme precision and a very long effective range. You don’t have to put all your effort into the aircraft.”

Of course the author then goes on to accuse the Baby Seal of being able to supercruise, so AvLeak might not be the best source for this. Hcobb (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the article because the website is down, but the F-35 might be able to supercruise, even 4th gen fighters were capable of it. If he claimed that the plane has performed supercruise, he is wrong by public knowledge. If he is saying that it might be able to, his claim is valid. 18.111.111.74 (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

F135 Thrust growth

I have tried to add information on the increased thrust produced by a modified F135 engine that may see future use in the F-35. This information comes from a legitmate source (accepted on F135 page). However, I am being told that it isn't relavent to the F-35 page. I don't understand why. Thrust growth is normal for a fighter, and other pages make notes on changes in engine output (F-16 in particular, F-15 page had two engine version listing until recently, F-14). I understand that the upradted F135 has not been put into production yet, and attempted to reflect the wording of my addition to reflection that.

This potential increase in performance also ties in with the section "Concerns over performance" well, since one of the issues is air to air capability. Maneuverability is a factor in such capability and it is in part influenced by thrust.18.111.111.74 (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

F-22 vs F-35 as tanker escort

The AvLeak ref that was just deleted speaks exactly to the difference between the F-22 and the F-35 for defending airborne tankers. The F-22s fly higher and scan further and can use supercruise to intercept the hostiles they spot. The exercises now quoted used none of that. Hcobb (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I am missing something. In the last several edits I don't see an AvWeek ref that has been removed. One was recently added. However, that article does not compare the F-35 to the F-22. It does describe the exercises that were performed in the summer of 2006 with a mixed force including F-22s.

Personally, I would find comparing the two planes in this role to be interesting. However, I don't consider it desirable in the article. If we were comparing them, a major consideration should be the F-22 unit cost of $150M and the projected flyaway cost of $89M for the F-35.

The current information is in the article to balance the puffed-up issue of the leaked RAND simulation. Unfortunately, the actual simulation does not appear to be available. Thus, it is difficult to draw specific, accurate conclusions. However, the comments in the refs on the simulation, the counter example of the real-world exercises (2 years prior to the leak of the simulation), and the fact that the simulation used 12 to 1 odds point to the simulation just being someone's test case of what it takes to have overwhelming force against these planes. The simulation should never have been distributed outside of those that need to know at what level the opposing force is overwhelming. Unfortunately, it is one of those things that people opposed to the program have latched on to and use to show how bad the planes perform. This is in-spite of the fact that at 12 to 1 odds what do they expect? Planes can only carry so much ordinance and fuel.

It should be further noted that in order to conceal the actual odds in the simulation the refs quote the opposing force numbers in regiments, not number of planes. 3 regiments vs. 6 planes sounds so much more even then 72 planes vs. 6 planes.

For completeness, I should state that I did not find the actual number of planes per regiment which was used in the simulation. However, refs on the web indicate that the number in real-life is between 24 and 26 per regiment. Makyen (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the ref that got deleted:

However USAF F-22 pilots state that their higher altitude cruise and longer range scan abilities give them the edge in defending such assets.

Note that the pilots are speaking exactly to a tanker defense scenario and this is the best ref I've found to date about this sort of scenario and it highlights the aerodynamic advantages of the F-22 over the F-15/F-16/F-35. So in this scenario the F-22 is clearly better for the role. Hcobb (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that that article is from 2007. To date (now in late 2010), very few pilots have flown an F-35, and those that have have still flown a very limited envelope. Additionally, no mission systems testing (like the radar or EO/IR) has happend on an F-35 (CATbird notwithstanding). It's a little early to make claims about the F-35 based on this article. For what it's worth... -SidewinderX (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The same Aviation Week reference is still there. The ref does not describe the exercises well enough to say they did similar tanker defense scenarios, imo. -fnlayson (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

From page four of that ref: "During a typical day in the Alaska "war," 24 air-to-air fighters, including up to eight F-22s, defended their aerial assets and homeland for 2.5 hr. Air Force F-15s and F-16s and Marine F/A-18s simulated up to 40 MiG-29s, Su-22s, Su-24s, Su-27s and Su-30s (which regenerated into 103 enemy sorties in a single period). They carried AA-10s A to F, Archers, AA-12 Adders and the Chinese-built PL-12. These were supported by SA-6, SA-10 and SA-20 surface to air missiles and an EA-6B for jamming. Each day, the red air became stronger and carried more capability." Which is exactly the "tanker defense scenario" RAND was warning about. Hcobb (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Got it. I looked for tanker and refueling wording before. Thanks for clarifying. -fnlayson (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

This article states: "Currently each F-35 takes a million more work hours than predicted..." Million more "work hours" (whatever those are - how do these compare to leisure hours for example?) for what? As a million hours is roughly 114 years, it might be interesting to know what is takeing so long...and what is the "predicted" number of these magical "work hours" supposed to be and who predicted them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.168.113 (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point - the ref does not support th text as written and so I have fixed it to conform to the ref. Thanks for pointing this out. - Ahunt (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Moving Variants Closer to Top

I made this change earlier this evening, which was then reverted because I did not discuss it. Very well, I am now at least explaining what I was up to, after which I will restore my edit. The F-35, unlike most aircraft, is three designs produced relatively in tandem, rather than one design (as with most aircraft) from which all other variants spring. Thusly, I moved the variants section ahead of the design section since this article is specifically focused on the F-35, which is the F-35 A, B, and C. In line with traditional aircraft articles, if the F-35 goes into production, we will end up with variants of each of the three models, which would fittingly be placed toward the end of the article as is normal.

Think of this as akin to The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, which unlike most trilogies was filmed all at once. Movies that follow the trilogy, such as the Hobbit films, will really be the trilogy films in the traditional sense of Holywood production. As for my edit constituting a major change, there just isn't anything major about it. I shifted a section, without any change to the substance or content of the article, save for a source from examiner.com which did not make it through one of the edit filters. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, please do not restore your edits without a clear consensus to do so. It's my opinion that the current format is fine, as that is what our readers would expect from our other aircraft articles. But, if the ocnsensus is agaisnt my preference, so be it. - BilCat (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. State the problem, not your preference. Is the content changed? No. Is the article clearer? Yes. End of story... anything else is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, to quote another inane policy page. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Your inability to understand or accept my explanation does not negate my having given it. This is a standard format in aircraft articles, and it is what our readers should expect: Consistency. Your reasons for changing are just that: yours, ie. your opinon/preference. But if you gain a consensus in support of your chagnes, fine, but if not, please do not restore your changes, as they willbe challenged again. - BilCat (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Again with the threats. That isn't why you have extra permissions. Those of us with the buttons are specifically expected not to use them in the manner with which you are currently abusing them. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• All this from an admin? A refusal to accept BRD and build consensus? You're not the arbiter here: State your views, allow me to state mine, and then wait for a consensus on the issue until you make further changes. As an admin, I should not have to be telling you that! ANd the snotty "this is whay you're not an admin" crap? Seriously? I'm not an admin, so what am I abusing?? - BilCat (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at it both ways I don't see any reason to deviate from the normal aircraft type article layout as explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content. The three parallel variants are well explained at the top under "Requirement" and then in detail later under "Variants". Keeping the layout the same as all other aircraft articles is worthwhile because readers expect the same layout across aircraft type articles. It can be changed by consensus here if really needed, but I don't see a strong argument to do so here. - Ahunt (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'm with Ahunt and BilCat on this one. The fact there are three variants is explained throughout the design development sections, and I don't think any reader is confused by the standard organization. Is there something specifically that confuses you as a reader that you think is better explained by reorganizing the article? -SidewinderX (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You actually make good points. I'll probably just split this into three articles, since they're really three unique aircraft conveniently placed under a common moniker. The consistency point is well taken, as I had approached this as one singular aircraft, but we're really looking at a family of aircraft more akin to the F/A-18 Hornet and the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet; Different planes with different missions and capabilities. I'll draw up the plan and execute it this weekend. Thanks for the great feedback! Hiberniantears (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add that I don't think this is the right time in the history of this aircraft to split the article into three variant articles. At this point it would require too much overlap. - Ahunt (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I hope you realize that we've already had split discussiona, and splitting to 3 separate articles was not accepted (assuming GF her, and not sarcasm - I genuinely can't tell in this case). Anyway, Side does make a good point: Is there some contnet in the Variants section that would be better if placed eariler in the article? This would leave the basic variant section where is is expected, but put some of the details elsewhere. - BilCat (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If I can interrupt the dispute here I would like to point out that personally I really expect better conduct from both an admin and a very experienced editor. User:Hiberniantears you have proposed deviating from the normal WikiProject Aircraft Page Layout and User:BilCat opposes that. I have already added my opinion above. There is no need for fighting over this, so please leave the issue for a few days and let's see what the consensus amongst editors watching this page is. - Ahunt (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I never proposed deviating from the Wikiproject, mainly because I've never read it. What I did was make a perfectly standard edit, and then engage in a discussion thread in which we all try to bury the main goal here in some obscure policy process. Moving paragraphs will not cause people to fall out of their chairs while reading Wikipedia. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And leaving it as-is won't make people stick to their chairs either. Pure discussion is fine, but when you take issue with being reverted the way to did that, you have to expect some kind of response. I'm not excusing my response's tone, but you've taken no ownership of your own role in the process yet. So stop trying to belittle people with your "we all try to bury the main goal here in some obscure policy process" comments. So you got your nose out of joint becuase I reverted you? Get over it already. please. - BilCat (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What info exactly in the Variants info needs to be mentioned sooner? The Requirement section near the top gives a 1 line basic description for each variant. The aircraft the F-35 is to replace are mentioned there also. -fnlayson (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That was my question too. I don't know. - BilCat (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't your question... it was Fnlayson's question. You were just being a process hound. I respect that the consensus isn't there for my change, and I've made no effort to put it back. Likewise, I respect that I don't care for you, and I've made no effort to revert that either. Get over it. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

My question: "Anyway, Side does make a good point: Is there some contnet in the Variants section that would be better if placed eariler in the article?" Jeff's question: "What info exactly in the Variants info needs to be mentioned sooner?" - BilCat (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Last word. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• But not the "exactly" part. -fnlayson (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't responded to either the exact or inexact form at this point. Comments such as "Last word" and "Boom" don't appear to be attempts to follow the advice of "We're here to build, not fight". - BilCat (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it appears there isn't consensus to move it, and there doesn't seem to be anything specifc that needs to be moved up. Let's just call this wrapped up. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Apologies if "last word" and "boom" didn't make it clear that I'd moved on. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Mission

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2008/0919ae_f-35settingrecordstraight.html

"Simply put, advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access -- all before the F-35 is ever detected, then return safely to do it again," said Burbage.

Reworded properly this would be a good definition for this strike fighter. Note how he carefully defines the air to air combat ability in largely self-defense terms. Hcobb (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"The Air Force's standard air-to-air engagement analysis model, also used by allied air forces to assess air-combat performance, pitted the 5th generation F-35 against all advanced 4th generation fighters in a variety of simulated scenarios. The results were clear: the F-35 outperformed the most highly evolved fighters in aerial combat by significant margins." and

"The F-35 is a racehorse, not a "dog," as Wheeler/Sprey suggest. In stealth combat configuration, the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius. This allows unprecedented "see/shoot first" and combat radius advantages.

The high thrust-to-weight ratios of the lightweight fighter program Wheeler/Sprey recall from 30 years ago did not take into consideration combat-range fuel, sensors or armament, which dramatically alter wing loading, thrust-to-weight ratios and maneuverability. We do consider all of this in today's fighters.

The F-35 has the most powerful engine ever installed in a fighter, with thrust equivalent to both engines today in Eurofighter or F/A-18 aircraft. The conventional version of the F-35 has 9g capability and matches the turn rates of the F-16 and F/A-18. More importantly, in a combat load, with all fuel, targeting sensor pods and weapons carried internally, the F-35's aerodynamic performance far exceeds all legacy aircraft equipped with a similar capability.

When the threat situation diminishes so that it is safe for legacy aircraft to participate in the fight, the F-35 can also carry ordnance on six external wing stations in addition to its four internal stations. "

All from your source, there's also this on the F-35 page:

"The F-35A internal weapons bay is reconfigurable for all air-to-ground ordnance, all air-to-air ordnance or a blend of both."

Doesn't sound limited to self defense.18.33.1.51 (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

it's thrust-to-weight, wingload and fuel fraction fits more to a fighter bomber. While the europeans and russian decided for a multirole design, the US splitted into an air superiority fighter (F-22) and a fighter bomber (F-35) to better cope with the different mission characteristics. The multirole-fighter-stuff is just for export marketing, and to calm down people seeing that 187 raptors aren't sufficient; but buying more is too expensive. The US maneuvered themselves in a shitty position, the f-22 isn't affordable both by pricetag and by maintenance, an the policymakers and military knows it. They only try to conceal it. By the way, a 4th generation fighter is by US definition an outdated F-14 or panavia tornado, not a super hornet, rafale or else. how it can outperform them by speed is quite a mystery to me. And if stealth gives the egde in the face that sidewinder missiles can only be carried externally, so that stealthy air-to-air-combat is only amraam shooting, i have my doubts.

Ok, i must admit, as an european i look at the kill probability of an aim-120 missile against old, third or second world targets (59% i suppose) and say: "I don't believe in esoterism, but in a high thrust-to-weight-ratio, a low wingload and sophisticated jamming equipment". But we will see how it performs in real combat, and i'm sure the jsf will be a very good fighter bomber with it's sensors and else. That's for what it was designed. -84.57.179.88 (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The F-35 is not designed to "stealth" into Sidewinder range, while the F-22A is. Just do the math with released figures. Hcobb (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I really dont see how 187 F-22's isnt sufficient. Apart from being the most advance fighter in service it is actually somewhat of a bargain at $150 million a piece. You would need at least 500+ of any European or Russian fighter to accomplish the mission of 200 F-22s. The europeans are all reportedly struggling to purchase all the eurofighters that were initially planned, and foreign buyers have all been rather hesitant when it comes to purchasing european designs. Also according to US definition there are no 4+ generation fighters in service that arent made in the US (simply because they lack AESA radar). Also the F-22 carries the sidewinder internally and it is a stealth fighter.. so pretty much you are just wrong =P sorry.

Also all US fighters have excellent thrust to weight ratio's (especially considering the amount of fuel they hold) and the AESA radars in all modern US fighters are extremely jammer resistant.Nem1yan (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

my critics was just about the f-35, the only think i criticized about the f-22 is the pricetag. and an f-35 without sidewinder missiles is a bait in short range combat. the whole concept relies upon not beeing seen by enemy fighters...and that's a bit risky. and with 20 to 30 manhours work for one flightour (about 10 for the super hornet) 187 raptors aren't sufficient fore sure. you nail everything while in the air, but a grounded aircraft doesn't serve you anyways. And about the europeans, well, we will see what india decides. US and australia are the only customers who ordered the jsf and payed for it, and as you mentioned the EU is struggeling in buying more fighter jets, the same fate will the f-35 face. the brits just dropped a carrier, so they needed less f-35b...we will see how it impacts on sellings. the most f-35 exports are to the EU, where defence budgets are low or even declining. -84.57.181.239 (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey everyone -- Wikipedia is not a forum. Take this discussion elsewhere. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sweet on the Marine IOC date

Sweetman has been a bit random about the project, but is he a RS?

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a9ef38fbc-a861-4c83-905b-b344e4987680&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest The US Marine Corps could declare initial operational capability with the Air Force's F-35A variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, as delays and a major review cast more doubt on the feasibility of meeting a late-2012 IOC date with the F-35B short take-off, vertical landing variant.

Hcobb (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Read Graham Warwick's clarification (It's the 10th comment). Burbage was saying that the USMC could do a larger portion of their training on the CTOL aircraft while the training envelope is expanded on the STOVL. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

And more Sweet talk.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=dti&id=news/dti/2010/10/01/DT_10_01_2010_p32-256043.xml ...could end the forward operations performed by Marine AV-8B Harriers, because of the vulnerability of forward arming and refueling points and other improvised bases. ...In that case, the Marines’ goal for the JSF—that 420 of the Navy’s 680-aircaft order should be B-models, replacing AV-8Bs and Harriers—could be ill-matched to the deck spots available.

Hcobb (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Article intro

I am interested in reworking the lead of the article, as evidenced by my attempt here. BilCat takes exception to the change as it reduces the lead too much given the size and scope of this article. To that end, can we discuss the efficacy of my content move to the first section, as well as an appropriate means to bolster the lead with quality content. I'm not convinced that we need a particularly lengthy lead given the granularity of the article subject, as it is almost best to jump right into complexities of the topic, rather than creating a lengthy intro. That said, would it be alright if we met in the middle and just moved the JSF centered paragraph to the design section while leaving two paragraphs in the lead? Hiberniantears (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Things to strip from the lead:

• First flight in sidebar already.
• Three different builders in lead? No thanks.
• Multirole has a link, no need to define it again.

So strip out the second half of the first sentence and the second half of the second paragraph please. Hcobb (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

As long as this article is the Lead should be about 4 paragraphs, but some details, like the X-35's first flight date were removed. -fnlayson (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Unit price

the cost of a F-35 is not $80 million like it states in the article and it doesn't even say which version. it will be much more expensive "But Washington's influential General Accounting Office says that the average cost per aircraft has now risen from $98 million to $113 million." __-_-_-__ 12:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point that it doesn't say which variant; that should be included there. Also, that's an Aussie newspaper article, are they talking about AUS$ or USD$? Most importantly, that number is from 2007, and the cited number is from the 2009 federal budget, which is more recent AND a primary source (rather than the secondary source of a newspaper. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"Feb 25/09: Aviation Week quotes an Israeli Air Force general who says the F-35’s price is the biggest issue, industrial participation industries is 2nd, and the tiff about replacing U.S. electronic warfare systems with local products is 3rd. The report adds that Elta is expected to provide its own AESA radar to replace the APG-81, without U.S. complaint, but the price tag of “more than $100 million” remains the biggest problem." "Feb 7/09: In a talk at the Brooking Institution, JSF program head USAF Maj.-Gen. Charles R. Davis has admitted that that the average cost of F-35 fighters will range from $80 – 90 million in current dollars, but IDF sources tell the Jerusalem Post that they believe the cost per aircraft will exceed $100 million, “making it very difficult for Israel to follow through with its initial intention to purchase 75 aircraft.” Jerusalem Post." http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/israel-plans-to-buy-over-100-f35s-02381/

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A new Pentagon study has affirmed previous findings that Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, the costliest U.S. arms purchase program, will require billions of dollars more than planned, and more time, an online news service said on Friday." http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091023/pl_nm/us_lockheed_fighterjet

"March 17/07: Australian DoD – Joint Strike Fighter. Comments on the recent US GAO report, and says: “Australian media are incorrectly reporting that the cost of the JSF has risen to US$112 million…” True, but the figure is not the $FY02 $47 million cited in this release. The actual figure cited in Pentagon budget documents for F-35A fighters bought in 2013, when the Australians wish to begin purchasing them, is a unit procurement cost of $108.3 million each." http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/retired-raaf-vicemarshal-abandon-f35-buy-f22s-updated-02681/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.176.103 (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's very important to find out how the costs are arrived at in each source before comparing them. Flyaway cost (actually several different ones, not sure which one is quoted in the Infobox) is not the same as Program acquisition cost. DOD and defense industry sources often use some type of flyaway cost, while the "mainstream" media usually just uses Program acquisition cost to "prove" that the government and/or industry have fudged/misled/lied about the costs. No one type of cost is the correct one, but when comparing costs, one needs to be sure that we're comparing apples to apples, not watermelons. An essay worth reading is User:Askari Mark/Understanding aircraft unit costs. This not an article, but an essay written by a Wikipedia with experience in the Defense industry, and he's explained the various types of "costs" in understandable terms. - BilCat (talk) 05:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That may be true but not of the Australian media. The program acquisition cost comes to around $200+ million per aircraft for us. The cost per aircraft is much lower but still exceeds 100 million USD.--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is the F-35 priced at 192 million? That can't be right.--Brainiack16 (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That is current cost. Look at the reference that follows that. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the clearest cost for one additional F-35 is the price quoted to buy one aircraft in 2011 to replace the aircraft shot down in Operation Endless Crusade: $128 million. Hcobb (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The contract between the constructors and the Dutch parliament which promises delivery (from 2010) for 80US$ a piece has not been renegotiated........... Why can defense contractors get away with huge overspending? Arnoutf (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Cost is very important, and is the main goal of the pentagon when they started the JSF program. After when they realised the cost of F-22 will become unacceptable high! The JSF started some decades ago and the dollar is depreciating, the federal budget was shrinking and the war on Iraq and Afganistan drained the pentagon, now we have this financial crisis. The initial lower cost was estimated on the ground that this aircraft will be massively produced like the F16 did, with a market volum of about 4000-5000 orders globally. However since then the market was reduced to about 3000 and this significantly inflated the cost on each aircraft. Then we had a pretty bad cycle with higher cost--lower demand--even higher cost--another reduction on demand and so on....

And this is not the full story, when you have an aircraft cost more than $100 million, the maintenance cost, heavy maintenance cost and operation cost are all going to be higher as the parts being very expensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.216.253.69 (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

the price of block II $192m has a broken link and is misleading because of the variances in price depending on what year and block etc

if there are no objections i propose to have a cost paragraph in the text showing the past and future cost structure of LRIP and multiple-year production price, any comments ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.120.31 (talk)

I've objections. "Unit cost US$191.9 million (flyaway cost for FY 2010)[9]" for F-35 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22 Unit cost US$150 million (flyaway cost for FY2009)[4] no way F-35 is more expensive then F-22. something is not right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.67.65 (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Canada bought 65 F-35A's for $132.31m (USD) each. $191.9m cannot be right. Maybe $191.9m is for the F-35C? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.112.127 (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Correction, Canada is going to buy 65 F-35, the money is not spent yet and given the fact the development of the aircraft is not finished, the price remains to be determined. http://www.canada.com/technology/MacKay+Grit+criticism+purchase+damages+military+morale/3528345/story.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.125.102 (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

We'll soon have the details of the latest contract between DoD and LM so we'll have a new price number then. Hcobb (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ballistic Missile Defense

With only 800 miles range it reads like something they'd develop for a UAV and not a mission for the F-35 itself.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/photo-release-northrop-grumman-distributed-aperture-system-das-for-f-35-demonstrates-ballistic-missile-defense-capabilities-2010-09-07?reflink=MW_news_stmp

Hcobb (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, at a guess, the way they talk about capability gaps, and about it detecting the missile launch itself suggests to me that a JSF launched from a carrier... or even some random ship that can support one or two VTOL ones (just hypothetically yeah?) might be able to act like a "spotter" and effectively extend the useful range of those AEGIS things. Rather than doing the shooting, it might just tell the ship it came from or another part of the gang which way to shoot, and even provide it with updates or something, the whole networked battlefield idea. This way maybe its possible/easier to hit the ICBM before it really gets anywhere or something. I mean... however good the AEGIS system already is, this might be able to make it see even further, or get more chances to wipe out the missiles before they start making a mess of things. Just a thought. I think I'm in danger of being forum-ish here maybe... hmm. Princeofdelft (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles, and I don't see anything verifiable there which could add to the article, so yes definitely "forum-ish". Mark83 (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Claims on Spain got lost in edit rain

Moved and reffed latest Spanish F-35B bit to Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement. Hcobb (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)