Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

F-22

The F-22 is in a league of it's own. As such the F-22 should not be in the comparable aircraft section. Nothing that flies today is comparable to the F-22. Angus Houston, Cheif of the Australian Defence Forces, Formerly head of the Royal Australian Air Force - "F-22 will be the most outstanding fighter plane ever built."

That is HARDLY an objective assesment, and you certainly are not a verifiable source. If you can find one to quote, fine. Until then, please be civil. - BillCJ 01:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
League of its own? the Eurofighter maintains a similar level of performance at half the price. the major advantage of the F22 over the Eurofighter is stealth capability. something the Eurofighter isn't totaly without. Plus its built by Europeans which is always a positive when it comes to engineering. Look at Cars, need i say more. (01:00, 30 March 2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.157.118 (talk • contribs)
Somebody hasn't been keeping up with the news: just today, the MoD reported that the cost per unit of the version of the Eurofighter the RAF wants is going to be 140 million pounds per unit...more than twice the price of an F-22A, which is by all accounts the superior aircraft. Look it up for yourself: you're wrong. Your bigoted position on engineering expertise made me chuckle though. 69.216.117.174 00:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Austrian pay 63 Mio. € per Eurofighter system!? ;-) A F-22 cost 335 Mio. $ flyaway! --HDP 14:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I see your point, I do not agree that the F-22 should be removed. The difference is not in quality of the aircraft, it is in the size and hence its intended capacities. The F-35 and the F-22 are built on the same thinking, and much of the technology from the F-22 has been adopted into the F-35. So they are comparable to a large extent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Endrelunde (talk • contribs) 10:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
No it doesn't. That's its average cost with R&D, not flyway cost. -Fnlayson 17:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Germany pay per Eurofighter 75 Mio. € sysstemcost with R&D and two engines. The airforce F-22 price is without engines without everything.;) When compare prices then only by same conditions.--90.187.13.32 14:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I aggree, but the F-22's thrust vectoring and supercriuse, not to mention the AESA radar put these aircraft in different classes - multi-role bomber fighter vs fighter with ground tacked on as an afterthought. If any actual aircraft (that is in production) is truly comparable to the f-22 it is the euro fighter typhoon. So how about putting the F-22 in a related technologies section?

To whoever (since you didn't sign your posts) thought of putting the F-22 and F-35 under "related development: THanks. I should have thought of that my self! I guess I was too colse to the tree to see the forest. Even worse, I do alot of editing in the "Related content" sections of aircraft articles, and that type of move is what I usually do! Ohe well. that's why Wikipedia is co-operative. THanks again. - BillCJ 15:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way people, if you check the Lockheed Martin site and read the product info about their F-35, it says the F-35's overall effectiveness if only second to the F-22. Just to make this clear. I don't know why people think F-35 isn't that good of a fighter. Most of its features and capabilities are similar with the F-22. Jaewonnie (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


Popular culture or not?

LWF, Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles, cited in WP:MILHIST#POP, doesn't suggest removing popular culture section all together: it becomes a problem only when it's too long. Moreover, the F-22 article also contains a short one. For consistency, I believe either both should be removed or both should be kept.EIFY 23:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the standard is not consistency, but notability, per WP:AIR/PC, specifically those apperances that are "especially" notable. So far, no appearences by the F-35 meet that stndard. In addtition, I've seen claims that it's the F-22 in DH4, so unless they are both in the film, it seems there is some confusion as to which is correct. That, along with the lack of notability, goes to keeping this out at this point. However, if it is indeed the first appearance of the F-35, if an actual F-35 was used in filming (not a model or computer image), and there is a third-pary verifiable published source attesting to this, it might be somewhat notable. But especially notable? Probably not, but that is up to the source to assert. - BillCJ 23:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The fact that it is an F-35 is confirmed in a second life interview with Bruce Willis, whose script is available on [comingsoon.net]. F-35B's lift fan is also clearly visible in one of the [trailers]. As for the notability, I would argue that the fact that Starscream transforms into an F-22 in Transformers is less notable than the appearance of an F-35 itself, whether it's computer image or not.EIFY 00:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Something being seen on screen is not notable. It does not meet the "Significant coverage" point. In this case, I'm not so sure though. -Fnlayson 00:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I am going to put on a tentative version with better context and citation. In case a majority decision is reached, I will obey.EIFY 00:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
It would probably best to put your tenative version here, and wait until a consesnus is reached to include it before adding it. THis shows you are willing to work withothers to reach a consensus, and are not jsut trying to promote your own edit just becuase you added it. Remember, your sources need to prove the appearance is especially notable, not just that it was indeed an F-35. - BillCJ 01:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. Here it is.EIFY 01:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem notable to the aircraft, especially if it was all cgi. --Dual Freq 02:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the (tentative) popular culture sections of these military aircraft articles need a consistent standard regarding notability, and that's what I mean by "consistency". For example, the transformers reference in the F-22 article is clearly less notable, as the characters Starscream etc. are not exactly F-22. Similarly for the transformer and Sprint commercial references in the F-117 article. As the CGI technology improves, it's becoming less and less likely that actual fighters will be used. Notably, the scene in DH4 dramatizes the hovering ability and the lift fan, unique feature of F-35B.EIFY 04:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I would like to say that I personally oppose the F-22 section, but a consensus was made to keep it. Although there is a sort of "acid test of notability", whether or not many random people will immediately associate it with the appearance, sort of like James Bond and the PPK, or Top Gun and the F-14 Tomcat. By the way, WP:MILHIST#POP does suggest removing them early before they get long, unless they are notable.--LWF 05:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there is little discussion about the current entries in the F-22 PC section in the archives, after the previous ones are deleted. It seems that most editors are rather indifferent about the references in novels and Transformers. Back to this pending edit, one option is to wait for more inputs about its notability, after DH4 is released.EIFY 06:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, there was a consensus somewhere about Transformers in one article or another. I wonder where.--LWF 23:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • F-15 Eagle and on the WP:Air talk page. There's plenty of justification for that one. Not much body of work for F-22 though. -Fnlayson 23:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
In the strict sense, no consensus is reached on the F-15 talk page as opinions from both sides persisted to the end, and the issue is settled through a less-than-overwhelming majority decision. Thanks LWF for mentioning and Fnlayson for pointing out these previous discussions though.EIFY 03:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think we carried the vote over to WP:Aircraft talk and I think it was OK'ed. It'd be in an archive page now. -Fnlayson 03:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
With the image of poking a hornets' nest in mind, I still think there is an issue that should be mentioned. WP:TRIV is a guideline which applies to every Wikipedia article, but WP:MILHIST#POP doesn't accurately reflect it, despite the citation: WP:TRIV is about how to handle lists of isolated facts (in a nutshell: integrate them within the context, if possible). Cited facts are not meant to be removed, unless they stray from the article or there are too many isolated ones. Somehow, WP:MILHIST#POP bends the inclusion-by-default guideline into a exclusion-by-default policy with some additional requirements (notable impact, prose discussion... etc.) and I am not sure how much authority such a WikiProject page possesses. WP:AIR/PC bends the original meaning even further, again despite the citation: it now requires "especially notable" appearances. Interestingly, WP:AIR/PC itself backs off through its claimer: "these are only suggestions...you should not feel obligated...". If a consistent standard is desired here, this issue should be at least explained.EIFY 03:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ask this same question on the Aircraft talk page I linked above. Maybe do the same on the Mil History main talk page too. There will be more notice/traffic on those pages I beleive. -Fnlayson 03:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I will start with WP:Aircraft talk first. EIFY 03:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Projects do have the ability to set there own guidelines for articles within their subject which may differ from general guidelines, as they often have to deal with unique problems that genral articles don't face. Military aircraft articles fall under both WP:AIR and MILHIST, so there is going to be some overlap, though there any many articles that don't overlap (airliners or tanks, for example). Guidelines are normally formed by consensus, both Wiki in general and within projects, so one usually has to have a concensus on a particular article to ignore or skirt the guidelines. That is what happened in the case of the F-15: some idiot thought it would be a good idea to put it up to a poll, and the Transformers appearance passed, much to the nominator's dismay (me, if you hadn't figured it out). The F-15 page is therefore the exception to the rule, and is not really a precedent for allowing Transformers in other articles, outside of taking a poll. - BillCJ 03:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't have problems with specific guidelines overriding a general one, provided that they give good reasons for doing so instead of citing it and then bending its meaning in the following sentences. Even if we accept that exhaustive list tends to be a problem for military hardware (which is still a debatable claim, as obscure and newly developed weapons do not share the same concern with the common ones from WW2), this doesn't provide a good reason for over-correction. If the problem is the length of the list, it should be directly addressed as such, for example raising the standard after the inclusion of the first 2~3 most notable entries. The same goes for WP:AIR/PC. In fact, it should not be cited for the reason of deletion at all since people are not obligated to follow it. EIFY 00:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh please! People aren't obligated to follow WP:ATRIV either, as it is also a guideline. I get the distinct impression your main objection is that your preferred trivia item would be allowable under WP:ATRIV, but is not under the MILHIST and WP:AIR guidelines. All your are really going to accomplish is to spur both projects to rewrite their guidelines to be even more clear, making certains no items such as Transformers appearences are allowed atall, including on the aforementioned F-15 page. Thanks, though, for helping us to get really serious about keeping out cruft. If you keep this up, we may even propose banning cruft altogether in WP:AIR and MILHIST. At this point, we've been OK allowing a few notable references, but the more people try to push the guidelines to allow their favorite cruft items in, the more serious editors become dead set against any pop-culture mentions at all. So, go ahead, make my day! - BillCJ 00:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Read WP:ATRIV carefully. "The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here, and Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines." On what basis did you say people are not obligated to follow it? Moreover, do we have the consensus that DH4 appearance is not especially notable or notable? Fairness, my friend, is one of the basic principles of ethics. Yes, I am criticizing inconsistent standard, as all people should. However, I respect your desire for banning all cruft. If that passes as consensual guideline with authority, I will be more than happy to follow with the rest. EIFY 00:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Key word: Guidelines! Not policies. If a project chooses to modify, change or ignore such guidelines, that is their right, as can happen on idividual pages. As to the DH4, you need a consesnus to allow it as notable. It's non-notable by default, per [[WP:AIR guidelines, however you choose to twist and misinterpret them. Honestly, if you want to discuss the WP:AIR guideline, we should take this to WT:AIR. At this point, you don't have a consesnus to include DH4 here, and you ought to focus your attentions here on that, and fight the guidelines themselves elsewhere. (I admit I've gotten off-track here too - I never met an arguement I didn't like :) ) - BillCJ 01:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Guideline [1]: "...b : an indication or outline of policy or conduct". The fact it's a guideline doesn't mean people are not obligated to follow, and I already brought this issue to WT:AIR#Pop_culture:_standard_consistency. Anyway, I agree that the key issue that should be focused here is establishing/denying notability. If no consensus is reached here, should the issue be settled with a poll (probably after the premiere of DH4)? I have to admit I am a novice here, if you haven't figured out already. All said, BillCJ, your effort for keeping the debate rational and under control is honored. You must be really lucky to be able to avoid all unfavorite arguments so far. :) EIFY 01:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
On wikipedia, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines defines how we use the term "guidelines". It's best to make your arguments from there, not from the dictionary. WP:IGNORE sets out the premise that it's OK to "ignore all rules" (ie. guidelines), within certain limits, usually meaning attaining a consensus to ignore a certain guideline. You might check that one out too. As to "I never met an argument I didn't like", I was mainly referring to the arguing process itself, not the topic or outcome. It's easy for me to get bogged down in discussing details, and ignore focussing on the big picture. - BillCJ 01:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the information, BillCJ. Let's focus on reaching specific consensus here from now on. EIFY 03:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Focused DH4 discussion

I still have not seen anything here that describes this a a notable portrayal of the aircraft. If someone sees the movie and wonders, "what was that aircraft?", they are going to search for an article about that movie. That part I can understand, link to this article from the Die Hard article. However, the reverse of that is not true, inclusion here amounts to simple trivia. Only very notable items like the F-14 / Top Gun connection should be included in an aircraft article. As mentioned above, the F-14 is widely known largely because of Top Gun, it was a major player in that movie and the two are inextricably linked. The same is not true for this or the F-22 / F-15 transformer trivia. I seriously doubt that die hard 4 will be remembered for its highly accurate / realistic cgi portrayal of this aircraft anymore than it will be know for the type of tractor-trailer Willis is driving in while being chased. --Dual Freq 02:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The F-22 / F-15 transformer trivia are included based on the consensus, at least for the F-15 one. If you believe they should be deleted, you should focus on reaching new consensus there. Partially, my motivation for suggesting the inclusion of DH4 appearance is the de facto standard of notability, after a short survey on the articles for modern military planes like F-22, F-117, etc. There are also some additional justifications, including (Note: these are either original research or speculations before premiere, so feel free to rebut them):
  • Possibly the first appearance of F-35B in popular culture
  • Dramatization (rv EIFY 04:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)) of hovering ability with lift fan, the signature feature
  • Googling "F-35" "Die Hard" together gives 22900 results so far. While all is speculative before premiere, I would say that the appearance is notable in both ways, if not major. EIFY 03:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there isn't much in that clip resembling a realistic "Demonstration of hovering ability with lift fan". We're talking about CGI here and not an accurate portrayal of how a fixed wing aircraft would be employed in a ground attack role. I'm pretty sure V/STOL a/c are not employed like attack helicopters and would perform their missions while in forward flight like traditional attack aircraft. If you want to talk demonstration, this isn't it. Its a bit part in an action movie, and the hits are mostly links to the clip, not notable news stories. No need advertising for the movie here. --Dual Freq 03:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Poor wording, I guess. It should be dramatization, not demonstration. As I said before, it's becoming less and less likely that an actual plane will be used: the fact it's CGI doesn't mean it should be excluded. If you actually try the googling above, you will see plenty of them are discussions on the forums, including F-16.net. EIFY 03:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The name F-35 is used several times in the movie. It dominates 5 minutes of sequence and will draw significant attention to this article. To most viewers of the movie, it will likely be their first introduction to the aircraft (even if not completely accurate). IMHO this vaults it beyond "trivia" and merits mention as the first item in a Popular Culture section. The listing shown below should be posted ASAP.Vespid 22:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
How about we wait and see? By the way, I'm on F-16.net and I see ONE old discussion of the F-35 in that movie, only one, and the whole thread is pretty much about how innaccurate the appearance is.--LWF 21:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to "wait" about. I just saw the movie. You refer to an 'old' thread. The movie just fully released today, so the topic is advancing. I just don't know how to reference something that is only available in theaters at the moment, other than illegal bootlegs. Clearly I'm pretty new at this, but now that it is in the theaters (several hours now) the comments I noted are readily verifiable to everyone who watches the movie. There are several clips referenced in the para and since in the movie it looks similar to and could be confused with an F-22 to a casual observer (although referred to as an F-35 at least twice) I would offer that it is time for the speculation to end and the posting be made.Vespid 22:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Wait to see if the F-35 becomes significantly more famous or is highly affected by the appearance.--LWF 23:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thats a very good reason to link F-35 in the Die Hard 4 article. So people who just saw Die Hard can be linked to an article about the aircraft. No mention of the movie is needed here since the F-35 may be a notable part of Die Hard, but Die Hard is not a notable part of the F-35. --Dual Freq 22:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Concur completely. (I was was just coming to write the same thing myelf!) This article covers the F-35 in detail, and none of that is enhanced by mentioneing DH4.- BillCJ 22:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, but if there is to be a Popular Culture section on such pages, the first such 'dramatization' of an F-35's abilities (and some misrepresentation) would seem to merit inclusion with the appropriate comments. Right now, at this point in time, it would be 'notable' although in a few years, perhaps not.Vespid 22:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I see your point too, but putting that in the article without verifiable third-pary sources, and culling it together in the way you mention, would be Original research. If an aviation magazine/ or published site does a feature on the F-35's appearance, and mentions the inaccuracies, etc., then that's possibly something we could use. - BillCJ 23:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This link is in the F-22 about the Raptors appearance in the Transformers movie. It is an Air Force Magazine article about how real F-22s and V-22 were used in the movie to lend realism, and marked the first movie appearance for both types. In my opinion, it is this type of article that asserts notability, and that is what is needed here. It does not have to be from the military, but could be from any entertainment or movie-trade site or publication (not a fan-produced one) with an article discussing its appearance. - BillCJ 02:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Although Bill makes a good point above, in my opinion Dual Freq has made the definitive point "No mention of the movie is needed here since the F-35 may be a notable part of Die Hard, but Die Hard is not a notable part of the F-35." Mark83 10:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Two more points - even if it was to go back in we would have to cut the youtube link. And of course it's CGI - never mind the "proposed reason" about D.C. - surely the F-35B hasn't even flown conventionally yet, let alone in STOVL configuration. Mark83 10:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Dual Freq's argument applies to many other pop culture sections, pending or not, like what he said himself (e.g. F-22 / F-15 transformer trivia). The point of a pop culture section is not about the plane's specifications, capability, etc., but how the public perceives the plane. Moreover, there is already an article on this month's American Cinematographer that describes the filming of the F-35B scene which I believe matches BillCJ's criteria. Therefore, I am putting it back at this point, at least until further objections. For the additional points, could you remind me why youtube link must be cut? As for the impossibility of flying F-35B, feel free to edit that. EIFY 17:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • On the YouTube links, wikipedia policy (WP:Extrnal links) says they should be avoided, since they often provide no copyright info. -Fnlayson 17:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I see. This particular one is an exclusive clip from IGN (see also [2]), so it should be fine. EIFY 17:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
From the Comingsoon.net quote of Bruce willis, he seems to view the F-35 as a variant of the Harrier. In that context, the comments about not allowing a hovering plane in Washingto DC make a little more sense. True Lies featured actual AV-8Bs in a number of scenes (and I do believe those appearences are notable). If the producers had been allowed to use a real jet, they would have had to use Harriers, as the Harrier is the only in-service VTOL fighter type. Since they had to use CGI, it makes sense they chose the F-35B, as this is newer, and thus also differs from previous film usage of the Harrier (also used in The Living Daylights). (This is, of course, original research on my part.) Therefore, I think the comment on DC prohibiting hovering jets should be removed, as it's not releveant to the F-35B specifically. - BillCJ 17:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the proposed DC ban is tangential to F-35B, as the notability is mainly based on the early appearance, significant role with lift fan feature, and the popularity of DH4. The youtube link can go back, however, since its copyright is cleared. EIFY 18:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for working to meet our criteria, even though it might seem somewhat arbitrary compared to other aritcles. I think you've proved its notability, even if it is a borderline case. As you've said, it is the F-35's first film appearance, which is somewhat notable. I do think more-detailed sources will become available in time. Thanks for jumping through our hoops. Some editors may still not be happy, but editing on Wikipedia is as much about consensus, negotiation, and compromise as anything else involved. - BillCJ 23:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No problem, BillCJ. I would also like to thank you and other regular maintainers of this article for the tolerance of this novice, who certainly appears pretty ignorant at times. I hope the quality of this article has improved as the result, along with a better defined standard of notability for military planes. EIFY 00:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

After consensus was apparently reached, and thus spending a few days on the page helping the public make their first with popular connection with the f-35, I see it has been moved back here. Vespid 21:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The only consensus I see here is that it is non-notable. Where is the notability in this? See line by line analysis below. --Dual Freq 11:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture

In the fourth installment of the Die Hard series, Live Free or Die Hard, the appearance of an F-35B as a misguided adversary dramatizes its hovering ability with lift fan.[3] A model is used in the filming, enhanced with CGI.[1] It is claimed to be the only CGI in the film, with the proposed reason that such a hovering F-35B is not allowed in Washington, D.C..[4]

  1. ^ American Cinematographer, 88 (7), July {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

VTOL/STOVL

Read on the STOVL article that the F-35B demonstrated VTOL in test flights but is operationally STOVL. I was wondering if it was likely to be operationally VTOL at some point in the future after it matures? 84.9.32.226 10:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What "operationally STOVL" means is that though the aircraft is fully capable of VTO, it will almost always be able to carry more weapons and fuel is a STO is used, because of the added lift from the wings and the take-off roll. They will still be capable of VTOs, just not usually at the full maximum take-off weight (MTOW). Sometimes, overloaded helicopters with wheels can make a short take-off roll to get off the ground. It's just basic aerodynamics that no matter what weight a vehicle is capable of lifting vertically, if it can make a short take-off, it will be able to lift more that way. It is probably technically feasible to make a VTO system fully capable of vertically lifting the F-35's full MTOW in the future. Whether or not it will be done is probably dependent on funding, and whether the capability is worth the expense.
Operationally, Harriers usually start out from a well-prepared bases with runways a good distance from the targets. After dropping their full load, they can return to rearm and refuel from small forward bases where only VTOL is possible (helipads, small clearings, etc.) Since the goal here is probably to get back to the targets as quickly as possible, they probably wouldn't carry a full load even if it were possible to do so, as the time in reloading to full MTOW would be to long. Honestly though, I'm just speculating based on knowledge I already know. Someone else may spot erros in my conjecture, but based on what I do know, this seems feasible. - BillCJ 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Cheers Bill. - 84.9.32.226 15:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
As one of the people who helped popularize the term and convince the military that STOVL made more sense operationally for a fighter than VTOL (or its similar kin), I can confirm that BillCJ’s is substantively correct. For fixed-wing aircraft, a VTOL point design inevitably results in a small useful load and a very short combat range – and if you want to bring back unexpended weapons, the range shrinks even more. Lifting a “dead weight” in VTO takes a great deal of fuel and the much larger powerplant and the arrangement of necessary lifting devices precludes internal carriage and restricts the number of available hardpoints. (It also makes the launch spot under the lift jets extremely hot.) A key part of the desirability of VTOL capabilities was to enable ready use of heavily cratered runways as well as semi-prepared dispersal strips. After extensive simulation and analysis, we were able to identify the minimum usable runway likely to remain available in such situations and then show that the operational capabilities of a STOVL aircraft design exceeded that of a VTOL design in almost every case. In any case, a STOVL design can usually perform VTOL (unless the capability was designed out for some reason). Askari Mark (Talk) 22:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Mark. It's nice to know I can figure things out right some of the time! I imagine the ability to do VTOL would be useful for STOVL aircraft, such as landing/taking off from the helicopter decks of cruisers or other non-carrier ships for emergency purposes or special missions, or landing in small clearings. Anyway, it appears my answer was more than the user expected or desired! - BillCJ 23:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Give yourself a well-earned pat on the back, then Bill ... it's not "rocket science" - but almost! In any case, it sure wasn't "intuitively obvious" to most air planners back when. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


New NoMoreCruft template

I am trying out the new {{NoMoreCruft}} template on this page. I'll will admit that DF was right about the Pop-culture section attracting more crfft - there's been more added since we put the section in than in the month before! We'll see if this new, expanded warning has any effect at all. I have used the formatting of the {{NoMoreSpam}} template, so this may not exaclty wok for us the way it is. Also, I ended up with something MUCH longer than I had intedned. I have included MILHIST in the template, but it tht project does not want to participate in this, that's fine, just remove the mentions. Feel free to work on the template at Template:NoMoreCruft, and discuss anything needed on the talk page there. Thanks. - BillCJ 22:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Format

I have made some redesigns of the article. Willing to discuss. FWIW Bzuk 22:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC).

  • I suggest putting the International participation content under a Operators or Future operators section. To me Testing is part of the aircraft's Development. -Fnlayson 22:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I would recommend moving "International participation" under "Development" or perhaps even under "JSF Program history". It's a rather unique approach to multinational aircraft development, but has little to do with "Design" per se. I'd then follow it with "Manufacturing responsibilities", and move "Naming" to a sub-section right under "Origins and X-32 vs. X-35". I also think this last-mentioned subsection, as well as the "Design" section need a little more fleshing out. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • True. Under Operators was my first thought. The nationals are involved in the development. -Fnlayson 23:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Excessive number of external links

Are there too many external links? Are all these pertinent?GraemeLeggett 16:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Probably so. I doubt all the first flight related links need to stay. A {{trim}} or other similar tag could be added.. -Fnlayson 17:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I would also think that there may be more textual sources now available for the reference section. There seems to be very few sources of information other than web-based. FWIW Bzuk 20:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC).

Gallery Yes or No?

Do you want gallery on F-35 pages?


Write your name next to a answer:

Yes I want this gallery:
No I do not want this gallery:
Yes but only some of these pictures:

zikky 10:50, 4 August 2007 ovcacik.mail@gmail.com

  • Not really. A gallery of flight images, yes. Spell out the acronyms on first usage. EOTS was not mentioned in the article yesterday when the gallery was there. -Fnlayson 15:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • No: I concur with Jeff's analysis. Flight images would be fine as they may not fit the general layout but the group of images that were in the removed gallery did not contribute significantly. FWIW Bzuk 14:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC).
  • As the one who removed the gallery, I concur. In addition, the images do not appear to be copyright-free, and are posted on Commons. THerefore, we should not be using them anywhere until after the issue is sorted out. - BillCJ 17:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I talked with User:User talk:Quadell, an admin who often deletes unusable pics, and he said the same uploader has added copyrighted pics as PD before. The images have alos been removed from Commons. The FOundation does not take copyvios lightly, and continued behavior such as this could result in a permanent ban at some point. Now we have only one pic remaining above, and since it's already in the new sensors section in the main text, this whole discussion of the gallery is moot. Please note that many users do not like galleries, and it is probably best to discuss adding it to a well-edite page beforehand. - BillCJ 20:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and I want MOAR pictures. --RucasHost 16:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Delays and overspending

Why does this article mention the delays (approx 2 yrs behind schedule) and overspending on originally agreed budget (about 20 Billion US$) nowhere? Without a critisism section this article reads like a promo, rather than a NPOV Wiki article. Arnoutf 20:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • A dedicated criticism section is not required to mention that sort of thing. That kind of thing goes in the Development section. -Fnlayson 21:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, a modern military aircraft program of any country that didn't overrun its planned schedule and cost – now that would be notable! In any case, an NPOV way to work it in would be to compare it with respect to other recent programs, with regard to whether it was "average", "less than average" or "greater than usual". We should keep an eye out for a source that does that. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
How about this one: [5]. It's a 2005 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office about the cost/time growth of various DoD projects. I've also used it on the dutch article. - Dammit 23:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Jets dearer than admitted

"To date, and in an attempt to make the cost of the F-35 appear lower, the Government and the RAAF have preferred to tell the public each aircraft will cost between $67 million and $80 million. But this cost — referred to in the jargon as the "recurring fly away cost", neglects to include costs needed to make the plane operational.

The figure used by the Government will only get the F-35 out of the factory door, not into the air. To make an aircraft useful and operational, the so-called "average procurement unit cost" needs to be taken into account.

The Age believes the most up-to-date Defence Department assessment of what it will cost to get an F-35 in service is $131 million a plane." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.187.189.38 (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"The Age" and RAAF indicate this is an Australian report you're quoting. So is it $131 million in US or AUS dollars? THat does make a teeny bit of difference. - BillCJ 05:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Riskily DOD Plans to Enter Production before Testing Demonstrates Acceptable Performance --90.187.189.38 07:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Users in infobox

See archive 2, Users for earlier discussions on the Users listed in the Infobox. It could be changed to British Armed Forces instead. -Fnlayson 23:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


International participation

It seems to me that the part on the international participation is incomplete. The system of the different level countries is explained. However there are no details on the level 2 countries and some level 3 countries. The way the page is constructed it seems that the United Kingdom, Australia, Turkey and Canada are the main international contributors to the program. Lacking are Italy, The Netherlands, Denmark and Norway.

According to the Dutch Ministry of Defence the level 2 partners could influence the design and share in the profit of the sales to third parties, level 3 partners only profit in the sales to third parties. http://www.mindef.nl/dossier_vervanging_f16/veel_gestelde_vragen/sdd/index.aspx

Korna 13:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


Voice Input

"Will feature a voice-recognition system, improving the pilot's ability to operate the aircraft. The F-35 will be the first U.S. aircraft with such a system.[14]"

The usual term is Direct Voice Input. But this is really speech recognition not voice recognition, i.e. recognition of voice commands rather than identification of the speaker's voice. F-35 will be the first U.S. operational fixed-wing aircraft to use this system, as similar systems have already been used in AV-8B and trialled in other jets. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ventral pod?

It says the F-35B will have guns in a "ventral pod". A search for "ventral pod" gives a few hits here in Wikipedia, but nothing definitive. If someone knows what this is all about, please write a small article and link to it. Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a seperate article is needed, it's just a fancy name for a gun pod on a hardpoint under the body of the aircraft, in this case the centerline one. Aerospaceweb.org has a small paragraph about it in this article. - Dammit (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I've gotten so Wiki-brainwashed that I want every word or phrase that I don't understand to be a Wiki-link and thus get instant gratification. :-) --RenniePet (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Finacel Time Germany

Forced break for F-35 The F-35 narrowly escaped a crash and the flight test program interrupted since may.--90.187.153.108 18:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm how many F-35's the United Kingdom will be receiving?

As the title says, can anyone confirm the exact number? It doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.88.173 (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That information is classified at this time. Sacharin (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
According to this reference the UK is expecting to order 150 F-35s. I'd say that the number to be ordered has yet to be decided, however, rather than being classified. Australia is expected to order 'about 100' F-35s, but the number to be ordered won't be decided until late this year at the earliest. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
And according to this site the "Production planning" figure is 150 for RAF/Navy. But take a look at the history of Eurofighter for a `lesson' in multi-nation number juggling. Who knows! Wittlessgenstein (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Until the UK actually places an order, the best we can say is that it "plans to procure up to 150 F-35s". Askari Mark (Talk) 18:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I actually work for the MOD, and I can tell you without breaching any laws, that we will be ordering more than 150. Sacharin (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the head's up, but can you give us a link to a reliable public source for it? (Otherwise it's "original research" for us.) I've yet to see one, although I have seen published reports that it might be less. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The info I was given was directly from someone, however, when I say "more", I mean over time, so we will start with 150, and order more. Hope that clears up the confusuion. Sacharin (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Cost

According to this link, thcurrent estimate for cost is $122 million. I am not very good at Wikipedia. so the link is after the Bibliography, the #2 link is still near the new cost, and I generally suck at formatting. But the information is up-to-date at least. http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=4055 DOD most recently estimated the cost of the JSF program at just over $299 billion for 2,458 aircraft; this calculates to a total program unit cost of $122 million at this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.232.175.114 (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The cost was correct before. Flyaway cost is listed for military aircraft per WP:Air/PC if available. This cost is supposed to drop to about $60M by 2014 when the F-35 is well into production. See "Struggling for Altitude" for that. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
What CDI has supplied is not really a "program unit cost", but rather a unit program acquisition cost – which includes RDT&E among other things. Unfortunately, CDI's writers often display an ignorance of basic DoD procurement terminology and processes, which is one reason why I rarely use them as a source. Moreover, they've taken an "innovative" approach to figuring a PAC. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


Oh, okay, my bad. Thank you. I was doing research for a game I'm making(pen and paper) and needed to know the costs and it seemed rather high so I googled it. The game takes place in the future(2019), so I have been able to use the $60 million mark. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.217.129 (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Marine F-35B Controversy?

I was just searching google and came accross this old news article: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/04/defense_stovl_jsf_070430m/

Seems interesting, but personally I wasn't sure if it was notable enough to put in the article, so I put it up here instead.

What do you guys think? Nextgenerationliberty (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Looks like just talk at this point. I don't think that is important until the USMC decides to order fewer F-35Bs or add some F-35Cs. The Navy has operated a number of different fighter/attack aircraft of their carriers in the past. A mix of F/A-18E/Fs, F-35Cs and F-35Bs on a carrier does seem much different to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This has far more to do with internecine feuding between the US Navy and Marines than with the F-35 per se. The differences in support requirements between the F-35B and F-35C are about as much as between the F/A-18E/F and the F/A-18G. The Marines have long insisted on having their own fighters to support their troops and not have their aviation resources absorbed into the Navy which, in the Corps’ perspective, would use them more for defending the fleet; moreover, the Marine Corps has a strong cultural philosophy that all Marines are to be focused primarily on supporting the troops on the ground. The Navy has long pressed the Marines to buy the Hornet (and now the Super Hornet) because it would simplify logistics (by removing an entire aircraft type (the Harrier); lower the unit purchase costs for the Hornets; and because, from their perspective, that would allow them to employ Marine air assets more flexibly.
While the Navy would have more of a case were it proposing the Marines buy Super Hornets rather than F-35s because that would minimize the number of types of aircraft onboard – which would indeed minimize support costs (albeit here by declining to introduce the F/A-18’s designated next-generation replacement) – when it comes to having two rather than one fighter variant onboard is, as the one analyst was quoted, “silly”. The only real advantage to the Navy would be to lower the cost of its version, the F-35C, but at the expense of the Marines’ operational capabilities, which would be “penny-wise, pound-foolish” to them.
With regards to this article, the news item would serve as a useful sourcing footnote to a statement to the effect that the Navy and Marines are still debating about the proper mix of models to operate from carriers. It is not the first time this debate has surfaced between the two services over their F-35 acquisition plans. I’m not too sure where to put it, though, since there’s no subsection specifically dealing with the US as a customer. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Very interesting analysis, Mark, as always. As to location in article, right now the best place would probably be the last paragraph of the "F-35B" section under "Variants". Most of the US-specific info, such as the F-35A replacing/not replacing the A-10, is covered in "Variants". As a side note, I think the F-35B would prove its worth on carriers (assuming it actually functions as designed) the first time the supercarrier had a catapult breakdown/malfunction, or even in certain bad-waether or no-wind conditions. Also, I would think the flexibility of being able to shift high-performance aircraft from the supers to the amphibs and vice versa would be useful too.
However, any organization that has limits on funding, especially one that answers to a US Congress, has got to watch the bottom line very carefully. The US may spend alot of money on Defense compared to most other nations, even per capita, but that doesn't mena they can spend an unlimited amout any way they want. The US armed services are always scrambling for an ever-shrinking cut of the defense pie, even to the detriment of the other services, as Mark so succintly pointed out. - BillCJ (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Blade failure will delay STOVL F-35B JSF first flight

"Pratt & Whitney's F135 powerplant for the Lockheed Martin F-35 suffered a second turbine blade failure on 4 February, the same day the US Department of Defense tried for a third time to cancel the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 alternative engine."--HDP (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation in header

I see a need to provide an immediate link to the Joint Strike Fighter program, which includes still-relevant information about the F-35's past, as well as the computer game which simulates the X-32 and X-35 (though that may be more appropriate for the JSF Program page, and is definitely of lesser importance. The game article is, in any case, still a very poor stub). What are the community's feelings about this?AniRaptor2001 (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My bad: Joint Strike Fighter does indeed redirect here. I have bad eyes, and when my eyes are tired, I sometimes miss the details. The DAB link should be here. - BillCJ (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
No worries ;) --AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Pop culture 2

I was very surprised to find the Die Hard bit in the article after a couple days off. Reading the above discussion, I still do not see how this is notable to the aircraft. Again, all of this seems to fit well with the movie, but none of it is pertinent to the aircraft. CGI has nothing to do with the F-35, misrepresented hovering in a tactical situation is also not relevant to the a/c. I anticipate remove this unless something noteworthy about the F-35 is included in this trivia. I don't doubt that it is true, but it is only relevant to the film not the A/C and the blurb will only encourage the addition of various cartoons and comic representations of the aircraft. Removal of the entire section would discourage additional trivia until some truly noteworthy, to the aircraft, information appears. --Dual Freq 23:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, pop culture section is about how the public perceives the plane, not the functionality of the plane itself. What I don't understand now is the insistence of the removal of this section here, not the others of even lower notability or on the par. Regarding the proliferation of the "blurb", further additions to this popular culture section will be asked to meet the requirement of the mentioning of an article on some significant publication. Not many appearances of military plane will meet that requirement. EIFY 00:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could believe that about the mountain of cruft that will inevitably be added here, but what we have there now does not meet the requirement of the mentioning of an article on some significant publication, why would additional cruft meet that requirement? As for the not many will meet the requirement, that is the point, only the most notable, ala F-14 Top Gun, should be included and there is no such comparison here. Every article doesn't need a pop culture / trivia section. --Dual Freq 01:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What we have in place right now is in no way notable for an encyclopedia article about the F-35.

  1. The first sentence, if you want to call it that, reads like this: In Live Free or Die Hard, the fourth film in the Die Hard series, the appearance of an F-35B as a misguided adversary dramatizes its hovering ability with lift fan.[1] It does not read very smoothly and does not assert any notability for inclusion in this article. It is cited by a video clip and, disregarding copyright and the taboo of linking Youtube, it just appears to be a way to pump the movie and show a CGI video of the aircraft. If we need to see a video of the aircraft, there are several here on LM's gallery. They have the benefit of being REAL and show the a/c in various stages of vertical, transitional and horizontal flight.
  2. The second sentence is: A full-scale model was used in the filming, enhanced with CGI.[2] Even though I can't see the actual source, I'll assume it is real. However, the second sentence still does not assert any notability for an encyclopedia article about this aircraft. What does this have to do with the F-35. Wow, a movie used a model airplane in a scene, alert the media.
  3. The last sentence is: This is claimed to be the only CGI in the film.[3] Cited by what appears to be a blog it still does not explain the notability of this item. Who cares if this was the only CGI in the movie what does that have to do with the F-35? The answer is that it has nothing to do with the F-35.

The bottom line is this material is still not notable, and at worst it looks like an attempt to pump a new release movie by adding it. There is no enduring F-35 - Die Hard connection similar to F-14 - Top Gun. Cite a non-movie review in the NY Times, or major paper article that shows that when people think F-35 they also think Die Hard. Otherwise this is little more than movie promoting cruft. I haven't even mentioned that this particular item, like other pop culture sections, has wasted the time of several editors who would otherwise be improving this or another article.--Dual Freq 01:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The standard and the reason of notability here are explained above, along with the issue of copyright. If you don't want to waste time, you shouldn't stir up the issue after it's settled. I am leaving this debate, and I won't come back to this F-35 article until I have different kind of material to add. EIFY 01:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm clearly new to this and only followed and pursued this in my small way because I thought it to be a good test case for me to observe how such things get worked out and consensus reached. Then, after learning quite a bit and seeing it all happen, consensus now apparently means: "Only if Dual Freq agrees." Furthermore, it doesn't take much time to be accused of alterior motives (sorry, I don't work for Fox) and that discussions become a "waste of time" to more experienced editors when they seem to fall in the minority. The requirements were satisfied, consensus was reached, it was yanked anyway, and frankly, I no longer give a darn, either. Vespid 05:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to respond to the deletion. I have reverted it, as a consensus has been reached that notability is established. There will only be one "first appearence" of the F-35, CGI or not. I understand the fears of opening the door to other appearances, but I feel we can keep the list pruned to the bare minimum, as we do on many other pages. I do expect to see other sources added in the future which will strengthen the notability (yes, that is a hint!)
DF, I'm sorry this happened while you were gone, but you're wrong to revert it in this way. If you disagree, you are welcome to take other action, but continual reversions will be taken seriously. If you want to propose stricter pop-culture guidelines on WP:AIR or MILHIST, I'm all for that, and I'll support them. - BillCJ 07:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Bill, I still don't see the item of notability on this. We're not even citing the "first major" part of this which is the only part that is even remotely notable about this. Certainly there will never be any link similar to F-14 to Top Gun. This trivia was not even in the movie article until I moved it there after rewording it so it made sense. I have nothing against Die Hard, but are the other aircraft in the series linked, ie C-130 or 747s from DH2 or the helicopters from DH 1? They have an equal bit part, what stops them from being linked as well, except that no SPAs have proposed linking them? --Dual Freq 11:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks Bill. If every reasonable Pop Culture item is discussed like this one, none of the sections will balloon. -Fnlayson 12:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
First of all, DF, sorry for the tone towards you on my most recent post. In the light of the new day, I came back to tone it down but I guess it's too late for that so all I can do is apologize. Anyway, the F-35 (such as it was) was more strongly featured than any other aircraft elsewhere in the series, and to my recollection, the only one that was specifically named several times. The F-35 was clearly "introduced" to most of the world in this movie and right now, I would argue, that almost all "general public" perception of this aircraft is solely based on this movie. In any case, I appreciate your learned perspective. Vespid 14:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the use of F35s in Battlefield2?

Games, for the most part, aren't notable. I know it's hard to accept, but they aren't. Notability means the apprearance has an enduring effect that goes beyond just the medium, and has an effect on the culture beyond just the game. - BillCJ 00:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

- BillCJ 00:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Also, if it is not the main player/character, it probably is not notable as well. It has to do more than just appear.. -Fnlayson 00:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I was just curious :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.22.158 (talk • contribs) 18:43, July 11, 2007

I see this has been removed from the article, but I feel it is worth noting that STOVL aircraft, like the F-35B, are employed tactically in forward flight mode reserving usage of the lift fan for short takeoffs and vertical landings. However, the film inaccurately depicts the aircraft hovering while engaging a ground target. I suppose it is not necessary to rip apart a CGI depiction of a fictional air to ground battle, but in reality no pilot would engage a ground target giving away the advantages that speed and altitude give airplanes. I suppose someone might say that's original research on my part, but it seems obvious that the F-35 would never do that in combat. I would hate to leave a reader thinking this was a legitimate depiction of F-35B tactics. --Dual Freq 23:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The lift nozzles on the original Harrier were only supposed to be for takeoffs and landing. But the Marines found what power level and airspeeds the nozzles could tolerant and used them to improve maneuverability in dogfighting with F-4s at least in training in the '70s. Considering the F-35 will be capable in air-air, they may not try any of that. -Fnlayson 23:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I question whaether it was the Marines or the original RAF pilots that discovered the opportunities for "VIFF" as we call it (Vector In Forward Flight). It was certainly used in the Falklands conflict in 1982 to give the RAF and RFA Harrier piots there a significant tactical advantage over what were supposed, on paper to be far more capable fighters. No Harrier was shot down in that conflict, because the harriers could outmanouver the MISSILES! The same flexibility meant they could go to a shot position no other aircraft could take. I cite as the success of the concept the current contender....The F-35. 92.17.240.65 (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Chris

Believe what you want. When the USMC pilots first did Harrier test flights they asked the HS engineers about vectoring the nozzles in flight. Nobody had thought about doing that before then (~1971). -Fnlayson (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Another film

I question the notability of the Children of Men(2006) Pop culture entry where a pair of Lightning IIs bomb a refugee camp. The reference given is this web page: Children of Men. Which does not mention F-35, Lightning, JSF on its main page or the others that I can find. I added a verification tag after the reference for this reason. -Fnlayson 14:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


Not having seen the film Live Free or Die Hard (DH4), I don't know how "significant" the depiction of the aircraft was in the movie - however it wasn't the first depiction of the F-35 I've seen in a mainstream file: the F-35 (albeit in CGI form) was used in the Superman Returns film which was released in June 2006 - a full year before Die Hard 4. In the Superman film, two F-35s were used as chase planes for the fictional space plane/shuttle launch which goes awry. As a result, wouldn't that be the 'first' film appearance? or does it fail the notability test? --Kilkenny71 (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This article says "first major film appearance" which is supposed to mean the first significant appearance in a film, i.e. its first major role. Appearing in a scene or two would not be considered a major role if this were an actor. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

5% classified

I've heard claims from officials in Australia that 5% of the JSF's capabilities are classified. Does anybody have a WP:RS on this, or on what these capabilities are. Do they mean things like it's top speed etc, or some kind of startreky weapons system?

- perfectblue 13:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The entire source for this was the Australian Minister for Defence saying that 5% of the aircraft's capabilities were classified. Nothing has come to light on what it was he was talking about and it could mean anything at all. --Nick Dowling 09:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Or given thats it's a politician, nothing at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.107.1 (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The background to this is that former Defence Minister Brendan Nelson was trying to deflect criticism of the former Coalition government's decision for continued involvement in the F-35 programme at a time when the Australian press were reporting that the aircraft was overweight, over-cost and behind schedule and former military leaders were pushing for its abandonment in favour of the Eurofighter Typhoon or F-22A. I suspect this statement was merely to get him out of a tight spot in an interview. It is likely that he has some knowledge that we don't, but I doubt it is anything truly important to the article as it stands now, and may well just be advertising or speculated capabilities in any case. For some idea of the controversy in Australia of this aircraft, please read: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/retired-raaf-vicemarshal-abandon-f35-buy-f22s-updated-02681/ 02:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.17.100 (talk)

Here's something to consider: stuff that are classified means it is either SUPER GOOD or SUPER BAD. The F-35's classified components must be SUPER GOOD otherwise it wouldn't be doing so well in the markets. Jaewonnie (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a discussion on this subject earlier.[6] Askari Mark (Talk) 02:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Directed Energy Weapons?

This doesn't sound right, sounds like down-right science fiction. The only DEW in the US Aresonal are massive, prototype weapons that are palletized, and use etremely heavy (and volitile) chemicals to produce a laser beam. These have to be carried on specially modified 747 aircraft, or on modified carivans of ground vehicles.

Does anyone have a quotation or a source for these? - Chance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.7.227.217 (talk) 04:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The section only says the F-35A has a certain amount of space and power capable of supporting a DE weapon in the future. Doesn't say the F-35 has a DE, but it does border on speculation and crystal-balling. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Otherwise known as "fitted for but not with". Given the interest in DEWs, I wouldn't be surprised that a next-gen fighter might have provision to support such a possible weapon, in the interest of maximizing service life. Sources would be nice, though.    ¥    Jacky Tar  23:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Which gun?

This article says that the F-35 is going to use the GAU-12/U, but the article for that gun says that a variant called the GAU-22/A was designed specifically for the F-35. Should this be changed? 67.110.212.70 (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Fair point. The F-35 uses a GAU-12/U 4-barrel derivative. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The GAU-22/A is a variant of the GAU-12/U, and shared the basic designation until just a few months ago, when the new designation was assigned. So both articles are correct - this one just used an older designation. - BillCJ (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Variants

The section on the F-35A states:

The F-35A not only matches the F-16 in maneuverability, instantaneous and sustained high-g performance, but also outperforms it in stealth, payload, range on internal fuel, avionics, operational effectiveness, supportability and survivability

So far as I know there is no verifiable information on the maneuverability, instantaneous and sustained high-g performance of the F-35A (or any other version). There are projections about what it will do, but even that is clouded by secrecy issues. Also, "operational effectiveness, supportability and survivability" are still unknowns.

Until that clears up I believe it would be more accurate to say,

The F-35A is expected to match the F-16 in maneuverability, instantaneous and sustained high-g performance, and outperform it in stealth, payload, range on internal fuel, avionics, operational effectiveness, supportability and survivability

Pmw2cc (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Good idea. Made your changes. There may be enough flight test data for LM to make the claim. But I haven't been able to find anything saying so yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Weight

There is no way this airplane weighs both more than the F-22 or even a F-105, if so where is all this weight in an aircraft smaller than each? Given that this is the source and better numbers can be found at FAS I'm going to remove the incorrect reference and replace it. Anynobody 05:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The official manufacturer's weights should take precedent over these (and most any) web sites. The max takeoff weight is high because the F-35 is designed to carry a lot of internal fuel (a lot of fuel period). -Fnlayson (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Uh, the F-22 has an empty weight of 31,700 lb and a MTOW of 80,000 lb. F-35A is at 29,000 lb and 60,000 lb. ~-Fnlayson (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I've restored what Anynobody has deleted, and added a ref on the F-105's MTOW (~52,000 lbs), which is what was being compared. He's been around long enough to no better than to just delete info straight off, but no permanent damage done. - BillCJ (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Fnlayson: The official manufacturer's weights... come from a 2006 distribution release which doesn't make clear exactly what it means by empty weight. According to this source, the CTOL is listed as empty weight 29036 lbs and internal fuel of 18480 lb. If we assume empty weight meaning basic aircraft empty weight, then with a full tank of fuel the plane weighs in at 47,516 lbs, but what if the release means standard empty weight? If so the actual weight would be 29036 - 18480, meaning 10,556 lbs is the aircraft's weight without fuel. Why the uncertainty? because on the page discussing this each empty weight figure has an asterisk which isn't defined anywhere.

In retrospect the FAS stats make little sense since the VTOL/CTOL are listed as the same fuel but the VTOL has an uplift fan where some the CTOL holds additional fuel.

Whatever the case BillCJ I have to say I expected a bit more from you than using figures from a website which contradict the stated specifications without some kind of in text discussion of the difference. (IE "...the weight listed for a F-35A is listed as 29000 lbs by Lockheed Martin, however Joint Strike Fighter = Thunderchief II? it has been stated that the aircraft instead weighs about as much as a F-105..." Instead we state here that the F-35 will weigh 60,000 lbs at takeoff as opposed to having an engine capable of 60,000 lbs of thrust. The website seems to think that because the engine puts out that much thrust, which by the way according to Lockheed it doesn't, the plane will weigh that much.

Bill, you do realize that an aircraft can have an engine putting out less thrust than an aircraft weighs and still fly right? Note the MTOW for the F-15C is 68,000 lbs yet the PW F100-229 puts out 29,000 lbs each for a total of 58,000 lbs of thrust, meaning that if the plane's engines had to produce 68,000 lbs to take off it'd never leave the ground. Instead it just means the plane has a low thrust to weight ratio. So I'm going to delete that section again. Anynobody 08:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Touche, though again I think you know better than to delete again before the discussion is over. Exactly what are you objecting to here? What you have removed simply states that the F-35 is the heaviest single-engine combat fighter, and that it is heaver than the F-105. What that has to do with thrust to weight ratio is that the plane has been getting heavier, with a MTOW projected to be greater than the F-105, thus the thrust to weight ration is getting lower. If we can prove the 60,000 MTW is in error, fine, but if the MTOW is over 53,000 lbs at some point (or within a few thousand lbs), then the comparison still holds. The cited articles states, "Neither have by the standards of their respective periods high thrust/weight ratio or energy manoeuvre capability, favoured for air superiority fighters and interceptors." I think that's the whole point of the comparision here. I honestly can't find the reference to the F-35's thrust being 60,000 lbs in that piece, so, again, what exactly are you talking about? One of us is missing the point somewhere, or perhaps we're both just talking about different things while using the same words. Oh, and thanks for the aerodynamics lesson thrust-to-weight ratios - I must have been drawing pictures of rock stars in my 7th grade science class the day they taught that, . (As evidenced by my vast contributions to WP's pages on musicians!) ;) - BillCJ (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Empty weight is a standard thing and does not include useable fuel. The data on the fas.org page is a few years since it predates the Pike move to globalsecurity.org site. Thrust to weight is generally based on the loaded weight which is typically close to the MTOW. Lift has to exceed MTOW for takeoff unless you mean a vertical one. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

About the weight, I'm just saying that if we assume the data really means devoid of fuel then the F-35 is unbelievably heavy.

Aircraft Empty weight
F-16 18,200 lb (8,270 kg)
F-15 28,000 lb (12,700 kg)
Difference
F-16 about 10,000 lbs lighter than a F-15
Aircraft Empty weight
F-22 31,700 lb (14,379 kg)
F-35 29,000 lb A*; 32,200 lb B; 32,100 lb C
(13,200 kg A; 14,600 kg B; 14,600 kg C)
Difference
F-35A about 2,700 lbs lighter, while F-35B and C are several hundred lbs heavier than a F-22
Notes
*Heavier than a dry F-15
I included stats for the F-15 and F-16 because
the F-22 and F-35 are essentially newer versions
of the former pair. The F-15 is faster, carries more, and
has longer range than the F-16 which has
good stats but a much cheaper price tag.
Speaking from a USAF standpoint, the F-22 has
everything the F-35 does and more at a higher price.

Bill:...is the heaviest single-engine combat fighter but it's not the heaviest, it could very well be the most powerful single engined fighter. The 60,000 lb figure has to refer to the amount of thrust put out by its engine, not how heavy the plane is.

I'm kinda in between things at the moment so I'll have to post more later. Anynobody 02:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, again, I'm not sure what you're arguing for, as the comparison was to the previous (and possibly still) "heaviest single-engine combat fighter", the F-105. And where are you getting this 60,000 lbs thrust from? It's certainly not what the Australian source plainly states. No report I've ever seen has the engine rated at much more than 40,000 lbs thrust. So you're putting together numbers, saying it can't possible be its MTOW, and then saying it must be the thrust rating, so therefore the source is wrong, when that isn't what the source says anywhere. And what is your chart on empty weight supposed to show me? Planes don't fly while empty (especially of fuel!), and how much they weigh full is important, hence it's called the MTOW. Seriously, take your time, and go over your material again while you're at it. I genuinely think you're missing a big point somewhere that is clouding your judgement on this, but we all do that sometimes, and I may even be doing it here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BillCJ (talk • contribs)

Bill: I'm getting the 60,000 lbs figure from the section you put back before. I'm not arguing to change anything else at this point, I'd of been making any changes I felt were absolutly necessary as we talked. My point is we have ambiguous sources, for example the one you cited is a media release set of stats. I have no doubt it comes from the manufacturer but it looks to be geared to the general public and thus may not conform to the standard of specifications in something like a Janes publication. (Did you notice it says:* After burner is not used in STOVL mode. Shaft-driven lift fan augments engine’s lifting force. How is the fan supposed function anything like an afterburner does in giving additional speed? Answer, that's comparing apples and oranges which makes one wonder why they equated the two. Internal fuel 18,000+ looks like code for the ability to carry a fuel tank in the bay in lieu of weapons, not how much fuel it can hold without extra tanks.)

Then there's the question I'm surprised you haven't thought about, how the *#$% can a smaller plane with one engine (F-35C) be heavier than an aircraft we know carries more fuel, payload, and two engines of about the same size (F-22)? The only answers I can think of are the builders were stupid, OR the empty weight they're talking about includes fuel (not stores). As I said before, they don't say what they mean by "empty". (Fnlayson I don't mean to ignore your argument about it being a standard term, indeed among technical publications it is, but these sources being geared for the public/media aren't nearly as technical.) In regard to this I'm simply saying we should be careful about citing numbers which end with an asterisk or plus sign which aren't explained. (If the reason the F-35A is 29,000 lbs doesn't include fuel, what the hell else could it contain which makes it only 2,700 lbs lighter since it's about 10 feet shorter in length/wingspan and has half the wing area?) Anynobody 06:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Then quote Janes. Anyway, I think we've gummed this one to death, so I'm going back to editing those rock star articles. Holler if need me, Jeff! - BillCJ (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish I had access to Janes, but that was just an example of a publication which gives detailed information consistent with generally accepted technical terms. See ya around :) Anynobody 07:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think there are some WP:AIR members who have access to Janes, some though their employers. You might just ask about members with access at WT:AIR, and then contact them on their talk page or by email with specifics of what you need. What ever numbers you get from Janes, I won't question them if they have a date, as F-35 specs do and are changing alot. - BillCJ (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added the empty weight figures from the 2007-08 edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft, but am unsure how to calculate the loaded weight. The figures Jane's gives are:
  • max weapon load: More than 9072 kg (20,000 lb) (no differences between the models are identified, but I don't think that this is correct as I recently read the the B model's weapons bay is much smaller than those of the other models)
  • Max internal fuel weight: F-35A more than 8,165 kg (18,000 lb), F-35B more than 5,897kg (13,000 lb) F-35C more than 8,618 kg (19,000 lb).
The source for these figures is also page 822 of the 07-08 edition. Could someone please add these to the article? (the thrust-weight ratios may also need to be re-calculated, I guess). --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to re-iterate that thrust-to-weight is important but not critical in most (non-fighter) aircraft...the aircraft has to have enough thrust to balance drag and produce lift from the wings to get airborne. However the advantage of a high thrust-to-weight ratio is in the ability to climb fast and carve turns without bleeding airspeed. A thrust-to-weight ratio of more than 1-to-1 provides the ability to climb vertically, for example, because the aircraft is not depending on aerodynamic lift. Fast turns without adequate engine power inevitably bleed speed and even height...a high thrust-to-weight ratio combined with vectored thrust for precise attitude control mitigates against this. 92.1.157.4 (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Chris


Production

As of April 2008, looks like there are like two test flight F-35s completed with 17 more test aircraft in different stages of production according to this Lockheed Martin release (will be 19 total test F-35s). According to the jsf.mil and teamjsf.com web pages, they are in low-rate initial production, but I can't find a press release saying when that started (2007?). Anybody have more definite info of this? -Fnlayson (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) has begun assembling the center fuselage for the first production Lightning II jet, a weight-optimized, U.S. Air Force F-35A conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant designated AF-6." ... March 24. "To date, the company has delivered eight of 19 SDD center fuselages - three for the Air Force and five for the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps - with the remaining 11 currently in the assembly flow in Palmdale." Milestone Provides Momentum for Transition From Development to Production Phases. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
"The AF-1 center fuselage is one of 19 center fuselages Northrop Grumman is producing for the current system development and demonstration (SDD) phase of the F-35 Lightning II program. To date, the company has delivered center fuselages for six F-35 aircraft, including AA-1, the first F-35 aircraft to fly; and BF-1, the first F-35 short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) variant. BF-1 will be the first F-35 to be delivered to the U.S. Marine Corps." N-G Press release Oct. 26, 2007. With only one that has flown, (AA-1) It seems unlikely that there are 20 completed as part of SDD. Does the 20 include X-35s? --Dual Freq (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead says "the production model first flying on December 15, 2006". Is the non-weight adjusted AA-1 the first production model? AA-1 is the first F-35 to fly as part of SDD, but the first weight adjusted F-35 is AF-1. The first F-35B (STOVL) is BF-1 and the first F-35C (carrier) one is CF-1. The first LRIP a/c appears to be AF-6 from the press release above. Only AA-1 has flown as of this month, as far as I can tell. -Dual Freq (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I can't find any reference to CF-1 in any of the releases. I would think they would have an announcement for it. This says BF-4 will be the "first full avionics aircraft". --Dual Freq (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Great, thanks. I found the NG release about the 8th center fuselage too. Do the letters part in AA-1, AF-6, BF-4, CF-1 refer to different production lots/groups? -Fnlayson (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to locate serial numbers or bureau numbers, but all that is mentioned is AA-1, AF-1 etc. I have no specific knowledge of this, but from what I've seen on various sites AA-1 is how they identify the first F-35. AA-1 is painted prominently on the tail of the first aircraft were the serial number would normally be and no FAA N-number is visible in the pictures I've seen. Apparently some weight savings were made in development of the B variant so all future aircraft will take advantage of those changes. AF-1 is the first A variant that is "weight-adjusted" or weight-optimized and BF-1 will be the first B variant to fly and those appear to be the first aircraft that represent the production F-35's. I think they are numbering the initial aircraft AF-1, AF-2, AF-3. I think they are being used as serial numbers or internal ID numbers for the SDD aircraft with each number representing one aircraft. this powerpoint presentation is about LRIP and it glosses over LRIP 1, 2 and 3-7. LRIP 1 was planned to consist of 2 F-35A's and LRIP 2 consists of 6 F-35A and 6 F-35B. I think we should remove the note about AA-1's flight being a production aircraft since it appears to be a heavier prototype version. Also, http://www.jsf.mil/f35/ says "During SDD, the team will build a total of 22 test aircraft" so I think the 20 in the infobox should be changed to 22 (planned) since we have no idea how many are actually finished, though that completed number has to be less than 8 since only N-G has only delivered 8 center fuselage's. BF-1 was rolled out Dec 2007. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, http://www.jsf.mil/f35/ says only 14 for flight testing 7 non-flight. Have they reduced the number again since September 2007? --Dual Freq (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I only remember them talking about cutting a couple test aircraft back then. The 14 flight test a/c agrees better with the 19 total test aircraft mentioned in the NG press release. Just a guess though.. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
AA-1 is the first SDD aircraft; the first letter is the model (F-35A) and the second ‘A’ reflects that it is an airworthiness test article. The SDD airplanes are not production aircraft, and the X-35s are not formally SDD aircraft but rather technology demonstrators, although some sources (like Fnlayson’s Flight Intl. article) include them in their counts of the “flight-test fleet”. It’s my understanding that an ‘AF’ designation signifies that it is a flying (“flight test”) example, while ‘AG’ means it is a non-flying (“ground”) article.
It was originally planned to have 15 fully instrumented flying aircraft (6 F-35A, 5 F-35B and 4 F-35C) and 8 non-flying aircraft (2 static test airframes of each of the three F-35 versions, an F-35C for drop testing and another airframe for radar signature evaluation). I seem to recall that it was proposed to cut one flying and one non-flying aircraft, but I don’t know which specific ones. In fact, I’m not sure whether John Young, the Pentagon’s acquisition executive, ever approved it. Unfortunately, I’ve been so terribly busy the past few months that I haven’t been able to keep abreast of the news much.
In any case, the first 2 LRIP F-35A were ordered in FY07. Last week Mr. Young gave the green light for ordering 12 LRIP aircraft (6 F-35A and 6 F-35B) with funds already authorized for FY08. An additional F-35A is to be bought with FY08 GWOT funds. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I did some checking and it was 2 flying aircraft that were dropped (1 F-35A & 1 F-35B) and this was approved by Young, so it’s official. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the breakdown on what the AA/AF/AG stuff means. So is that a total of 14 for flight testing like the website says? Does that include AA-1 or is it AA-1 + (14 AF/BF/CF)? --Dual Freq (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It is AA-1 + 4 AF + 4 BF + 4 CF for a total of 13 (not 14) flying prototypes. The JSF site apparently hasn't been updated in a while; its 14 flying and 7 non-flying SDD aircraft reflects what I'd originally heard about 1 flying and 1 non-flying prototype being proposed for deletion (back in August 2007). Askari Mark (Talk) 21:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There was an erroneous statement near the end of the article claiming that a successful CDR meant that the F-35 would enter into Low Rate Initial Production; I removed the statement and replaced it with a more accurate one. The referenced article is correct but somewhat unclear; it must have just been misinterpreted by whomever transposed it to the wikipedia article. Kazrian (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

P-40 program costs

We need to keep in mind that the costs we show in the infobox are supposed to be “apples and apples” with those on all other aircraft pages, insofar as we are able. The flyaway cost for one small batch of pre-production aircraft shouldn’t be used in lieu of an available average production aircraft flyaway cost. The final column of the P-40 for the FY09 President’s Budget gives a total program unit flyaway cost of $83.131M. However, it needs to be kept in mind that this value is itself not an accurate FAC because it is based on the sum total of projected “then-year” dollars – not constant dollars as is normal use. That means each future year’s constant-dollar cost is multiplied by an inflation factor and it is these latter being added together before dividing the total by the number of aircraft; as such, the number reported in the P-40 is artificially high. Furthermore, the estimated value can be skewed considerably higher if more aircraft are bought in later years than earlier years (and vice versa). (For an interesting and informed discussion about this, check out this forum discussion I came across.) Askari Mark (Talk) 21:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I updated that reference to the FY 2009 budget report released February 2008. It lists $83M for the Total FAC based on 1763 fighters. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Flyaway Cost

What is the flyaway cost, how is it different from f. ex. the average cost per airplane or the lifetime cost? This should be explained in the article... -- Heptor talk 10:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

See this essay. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
It is a good one, thanks! -- Heptor talk 04:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

HUD

In this one site it said the F-35 did not have a HUD mounted in the cockpit but instead the pilot has to use this weird looking helmet display. Read more -> [7] Jaewonnie (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That has already been stated in the article: [F-35 Cockpit]

"Although helmet-mounted displays have already been integrated into some fourth-generation fighters such as the Swedish JAS 39 Gripen, the F-35 will be the first in which helmet-mounted displays replace a head-up display (HUD) altogether" Tsurugi (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Better than Eurofighter at air-to-air?

Is the F-35 better than the Eurofighter Typhoon at air-to-air combat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.186.55 (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that the purpose of this talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article. Not for general questions related to the content. MilborneOne (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Die Hard 4 F-35 Clip
  2. ^ Gray, Simon (July), "One-Man Riot Squad", American Cinematographer, 88 (7): 32 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
  3. ^ Interview with Bruce Willis for Live Free or Die Hard
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II/Archive_3&oldid=1136961845"