Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II/Archive 8

Helmet Section

We need to clean up the section, frankly its all over the place, what's the latest word on VSI, will BAE be supplying the F35 helmet instead? Twobells (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

okay, here and here, along with a video here is the helmet that has quietly been put into use, the BAE Striker HMSS. Twobells (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

.. in other words, the Eurofighter Typhoon helmet. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Math problem

"$304.15 million ($9,732.8/32)" Something is definitely wrong here!211.225.34.166 (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Lindsey Graham leaks on newspaper

http://hamptonroads.com/2010/12/military-plans-send-jets-sc-nc-calif-ariz

That's the best I've found on this leak. Nothing from the Senator's office directly yet. Hcobb (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure whats important about a two-year old article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That's the final source behind this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II&action=historysubmit&diff=570114751&oldid=569872546 Hcobb (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I was still working out what Alert 5 was and who Lindsey Graham is and is basing strategy really relevant to this article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That's why I flagged the edit. The intermediate step in the sourcing is here: http://alert5.com/2010/12/10/basing-strategy-for-usmc-f-35s/ So I really don't think any of this holds up. Hcobb (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

http://alert5.com seems to be WP:SPS. - Ahunt (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

(Unintentional unindent) So the consensus is to revert due to sourcing and relevancy issues? Hcobb (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I would agree it is mainly speculative and we can wait and see what actually happens, perhaps in a seperate "Lighting II in United States Marine Corps service" or such like. MilborneOne (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Given that the USMC is moving towards a single tac-air model, wouldn't such an article be largely redundant with their main av-articles? Hcobb (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This was not originally an Alert5 article but an Assoc. Press article which is presented below in this post. Not sure why entire section is being deleted which has been co-edited and verified. This wikipage is filled with deep history in many sections, 1yrs old, 2yrs old,...5yrs old. If you have a reference for USMC changing to exclusively A or B or C to the exclusion of the others in 2013 then there is no reason not to add it (would like to see it). Here is the original Assoc. Press report. The section is to be restored since SPS for "Alert5" is no longer an issue. Assoc. Press report follows:

"Military plans to send jets to S.C., N.C., Calif., Ariz."

The Associated Press © December 9, 2010 By Susanne M. Schafer

COLUMBIA, S.C.

The military plans to put 400 of the Marine Corps' new vertical take-off F-35B fighter jets at four installations in North and South Carolina, California and Arizona.

Navy documents released Thursday by U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham's office say that up to 128 of the stealthy futuristic jets will be based in Cherry Point, N.C., and 88 aircraft and a training unit will go to Beaufort, S.C. Some 96 jets will be based at Miramar, Calif., and 88 will go to Yuma, Ariz.

The documents say the jets will begin arriving in phases starting in 2012.

[Etc., fairly long article] 76.193.164.24 (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The main problem, as we discussed above, is that this particular article isn't going to discuss where each and every F-35 built is based. As noted, if even needed anywhere, that would be in national articles on F-35 employment, not here in the general article on the aircraft type. - Ahunt (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Not certain how this issue is being formulated here in all its aspects. This F-35 wikipage is including extensive information on international purchasing of the aircraft by Allies all over the world. By consistency domestic usage data is also of general interest, between all branches of military, and expected application for field use and geographical distribution. If you have new info on expected application patterns and purchase patterns for procurement between branches of military or international patterns certainly add it. 76.193.163.230 (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Basing strategy of one operator is not really important in what is a general overview of the aircraft but would be better suited to a specific USMC article on the F-35. Under operators we would normally list units and squadrons and location but dont need to speculate we can just add them as factual when they happen, support it not being added. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Supersonic acceleration worse than previously reported

http://flightglobal.rbiblogs.co.uk/the-dewline/2013/08/f-35b-sea-trials-aboard-the-uss-wasp/ An interesting factoid, one of the USMC test pilots mentioned this little tidbit—they have to use a modified Rutowski profile in order to get the F-35B and C up to Mach 1.6. Basically, you do one push over, unload the jet and accelerate, get up to 1.2, turn and repeat until you hit 1.4 Mach, turn and repeat till you hit Mach 1.6. It just barely gets there and barely has any gas left over afterwards.

Now why was this "factoid" reverted from the article? We already knew that it wasn't a supercruise fighter, but this casts doubt as to tactically useful supersonic flight at all. Hcobb (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the reversion and am currently discussing it on User Bilcat's talkpage. Cheers Irondome (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Why not use lipstick to paint a happy face on this fat pig? Something along the lines of "USMC aviators have developed innovative flying patterns in order to briefly reach the specified Mach 1.6 top speed of the F-35." Would everybody be happy with that? Hcobb (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Whether this issue proves to be real or not, at the moment all you have to support it is a blog entry. Until and unless reliable sources can be found to support the claims, they have to be left out of the article. We get it that you don't like this aeroplane, however, that is not a reason to ignore the policies and guidelines of the encyclopaedia. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Also it does not say at what altitude this manoeuvre was carried out at. These are also still test aircraft.Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Also as Hcobb has been reminded loads of times this is an encyclopedia entry not a news or blog, we are not in a rush we can wait for reliable sources for notable information. We are already a stage that the article is full of trivia that it will need a good prune soon so adding more trivia will not help. It was a former featured article and to be down as a "b" class article for an important aircraft as the F-35 is not a good place but it will not get promoted again until we remove all the crap. MilborneOne (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

@MilborneOne that it was a FA article and is no more does not matter here. FA standards have gone up, and this plane being still in development will make changes to the page frequent until it is well in active duty. That will make the quality of the article volatile almost by definition. (If Lockheed had just lived up to its promises and had the plain sold for active duty service around 2007 for a price of about 80M$ a piece this would have calmed down long ago.) Arnoutf (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this the problem this is not a news blog or fan boy site we dont need to make changes every day we can wait, so we have no reason to make frequent page changes we just need patience. If it is notable and sufficient weight it will all appear in reliable sources in the future and can be added. MilborneOne (talk) 09:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

With that I fully agree. Arnoutf (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of recent accel flight testing

Thanks for your comments. I see the only other editor involved as user:FN. Each of you have a history with this wikipage and I am assuming you have read this section in its entirety from start to end. There is no editorializing here. This was meant as part one of a two part edit.

This recent edit is clearly in reference to the last sentence of this section where dismal acceleration results were posted in the high speed performance region above 1.2 Mach. The craft could hardly reach its high speed with acceleration deeply compromised. The current testing was to try to see if the acceleration in the lower speed range would show anything comparable, and the results were reported as below expected standards. The last sentence in this section is clearly related to this issue and should be re-edited to appear next to these current acceleration data results for readers of this page to see the connection. Certainly, if you have tweaks or comments then add them. There is no negative editorializing here. Part two of this edit was to reintegrate the last disassociated sentence in this section with the current paragraph under discussion to increase the readability of the section as a whole. Both results are related and should appear together in the same paragraph. 72.68.5.132 (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

There is not much of a link between acceleration performance and top speed and none of the refs you put in for the text you had added several times: "(well within the expected maximum design performance speed set to exceed Mach 1.6 as documented in the Engines subsection below)", mentioned acceleration performance. Your text was about top speed and thus not relevant to a discussion of acceleration performance; it didn't belong there, even if it had been properly sourced. If you want to add further text on acceleration performance then you need to cite refs that discuss acceleration performance, either on its own, in comparison to the aircraft's performance goals or in comparison to other aircraft. Your last added text "(no acceleration results for acceleration performance at the high speed performance range between 1.2 Mach to 1.6 Mach speed were reported, nor for acceleration performance in any speed ranges below .8 Mach)" was unsourced, obvious from reading what was already there and added nothing to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Would it be helpful if I added the refs that mentioned directly that the general performance of the aircraft (other than the trouble spots we've noted) is in line with expectations and the performance of the aircraft being replaced? It's not like they say it did X under Y conditions, but rather that the performance is as was expected. Hcobb (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Both of these are useful comments. The User:Ahunt comment does not mention the second part of this intended two-part edit which I described in the above comment, but which was not yet incorporated into the text because of the sudden re-edits which appeared when the first part was posted. I am now quoting below the fragmented text of the sentence as it currently appears without any context at the very end of this Section on the current wikipage, which you have not mentioned in any of your comments. I had mentioned it in my notes in the previous post above. The current text at the end of this Section reads as follows,

"Due to the high drag design of the F-35, it takes several complex maneuvers to reach the top speed of Mach 1.6, which consume almost all of the onboard fuel.[189]"

Is your comment now that this says nothing about the high speed acceleration performance? Are you saying that it is unrelated to the reason that only the narrow Mach.8 to Mach 1.2 range was singled out for the last acceleration testing report?

The second part of the two-part edit discussed above (for some reason User:Hunt does not mention the second part of the intended two-part edit referred to above) would simply put these two footnoted research results together into a single paragraph since they reinforce each other. The one report informs the other report, and they should not be broken up and separated as they currently appear in this Section.

User:Hcobb comment is also useful since this entire growing paragraph in this Section may need to be broken up into two paragraphs anyway just for readability purposes. 72.68.5.132 (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

More program cost increases and delays

Does anybody feel that's an excellent section title? Is there some way to move these mislabeled "Criticism" sections into the main text? Say move the engine troubles into the engine section, the lack of weapons complaints into the armament section, the lack of stealth into the stealth section, etc.? Hcobb (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

In principle Good idea. In practice this is more problematic. In my view this article has found a more or less stable stalemate with the fans of the plane dominating the technical sections, and the critics the --- well, not so cleverly disguised --- criticism sections. The problem with merging at this time could well be that the criticism is largely removed (and that would be unjustified considering the mess made of development), or that we end up at an endless POV battle.

My 2-cents would be to wait until mass production starts in 2007* and once the planes have entered service that same year start integrating; because by then we should be able to oversee where it all went. (* or whenever) Arnoutf (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

No mention of interesting crack seen on a photo

There is a photography described "F-35A front profile inflight..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_U.S._Air_Force_pilot_navigates_an_F-35A_Lightning_II_aircraft_assigned_to_the_58th_Fighter_Squadron,_33rd_Fighter_Wing_into_position_to_refuel_with_a_KC-135_Stratotanker_assigned_to_the_336th_Air_Refueling_130516-F-XL333-404.jpg

On the lower left (from pilot's view) side of a plexiglass canopy, just above a warning "WARNING - DO NOT CUT CANOPY..." in a light grey rim, there is a crack (best visible on a full resolution picture).

There is no mention of this crack in picture description. Do anybody know why it is there, how it could develop, and whether it could be dangerous to pilot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klenot (talk • contribs) 20:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

F-35 is full of cracks, none of them notable. http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/fy2012/pdf/dod/2012f35jsf.pdf Hcobb (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it appears to be inside the cockpit. Looks to be on the instrument casing. Irondome (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I had a look at the photo and that "crack" is actually just a type of body filler that fairs the canopy to the frame that is damaged. It is strictly non-structural and would be snagged in the aircraft record as a minor entry requiring filling and painting. - Ahunt (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Move pre-production to JSF article

Couldn't we save a lot of space in this article by moving all the pre-production aircraft stuff over to the Joint Strike Fighter program article and reserving this space for LRIP and following aircraft? Hcobb (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Are pre-production aircraft X-35? If not, no. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No. The pre-production F-35s are relevant to the design and early design changes. That info is a better fit here than at the JSF program article. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The program article says "acquisition" and contains sections about cost and tech issues dated 2012. It seems that some elements of the main article would fit in the program article also/instead. TGCP (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Split this article

This is getting way to big. Time to split some content off into Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II development, or "history of", or "...program "or something like that. - ^theWOLFchild 01:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

c.f. Lockheed Martin X-35, no? Hcobb (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, why not? Surely some of the content about the development history and issues can be moved to that article, or the Joint Strike Fighter program page. But this article is becoming too unwieldy, too large. Something needs to be done. - ^theWOLFchild 19:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Not against a split but I suspect we could reduce the article in size by summarising and removing some of the guff in the article, it was added on a press release by press release method and most of it can be greatly reduced. MilborneOne (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with User:MilborneOne: I think the first step should be to carefully remove the trivia and other barely relevant text. For instance the "Operational history" section could be seriously cut down as it has far too much detail for an encyclopedia article. Once it is all cleaned up then we can see if any splitting is still required. - Ahunt (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a split is appropriate after careful cleanup. The pure military deployment and technical details which normally constitute most of such articles has been overtaken by the sheer size of the polito-economic-industrial debate about whether it's too little plane for too much money for so-called allies, congressional debates yaddah yaddah. So I propose to separate it into two : a traditional warplane article such as that for the F-16, to which military experts contribute, and separate article for the global politico-economic issues to which the relevant experts can contribute - countries now demanding more bang for buck or not needing to be state-of-the art anymore now they don't see threats etc. but still needing something soon. I think the three models should remain in a single article, as the whole rationale for the project is based on all three models being variants of the same plane. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

More weight reduction?

Was the cannon reduced from five to four barrels as part of the weight reduction program? Bizzybody (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Compared to the F-22, the F-33 fires at a lower rate, but with bigger shells. This has been called a anti-tank measure to not make the Baby Seal look so bad vs. A-10. Hcobb (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Worries about Budget Control Act of 2011

Since these worries have been dealt with since then, esp. with latest budget deal, why keep it? Hcobb (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Rather than write edit summaries that accuse companies of stealing, it would be more helpful if you would give your actual reasonings in your edit summaries. Better yet, stop adding newsy items to articles that will be out of date at a later point. Of course, that would mean treating Wikipedia as an actual encyclopedia rather than your personal blog. Case in point, your ridiculously obtuse, inane, and inaccurate comment in the preceding section. - BilCat (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

F-35 parts made in China

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/03/us-lockheed-f-idUSBREA020VA20140103

Do we dig down to this level of detail or not? The article is already bloated from LockMart's many missteps and this seems more like a technical rather than serious breach of American law. So include or not? Hcobb (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I dont think we need to go down to the level of $2 magnets whatever the internal polical issues on not buying American. MilborneOne (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Jargon, TLAs and other barriers to comprehension.

As a plea to article authors, please, please, please, define all abbreviations and acronyms with first use. Also, whenever a technical term is used which has a Wikipedia article, include that as part of the test.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.1.89 (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Always a good idea, including wikilinks to relevant explanations. Feel free to point out when things are unclear or, better yet, fix them, if you can do so! - Ahunt (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed unproven speculation on SRVL

A small line was added indicating that SRVL on the B variant would slow deck operations, as SRVL is undergoing testing and is years away from ever being used on a carrier I don't think we can make that leap just yet, the article reference posted to support the statement-

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-marines-eye-uk-jsf-shipborne-technique-214672/

Actually doesn't say anything of the kind, SRVL may offer some excellent gains and if theory holds may allow a faster bring back rate and less time in holding then cat and trap landings, but this will still be speculation for a couple of years at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.218.155 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.218.155 (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Upgrade section trimmed

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-awaits-capability-boost-from-block-4-software-395125/

Are we going to keep out the upgrade plans out of this article? Hcobb (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Denmark

Denmark is not an F-35 operator. World Air Forces 2014 page 13: >>Denmark - Royal Danish Air Force: Type: F-35A, Ordered: 30*<<. Page 8: >>EXPLANATORY NOTES:…Ordered: Aircraft on firm order. Others which are pending purchase approval or contract signature are marked with an asterisk. This category includes current planned order totals, which may be subject to future revision.<<

The winner of the Danish Fighter Replacement Program will be announced mid-2015. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

F-35A and F-35B pictures selected as 'best photos'

Headline: 60 best shots of military tech in action

• http://www.foxnews.com/tech/slideshow/2014/02/12/60-best-shots-military-tech-in-action/?intcmp=trending#slide=23

"August 27, 2013: Three F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters with Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, fly in formation during fixed-wing aerial refueling training over eastern California. VMFA-121 is the first F-35B squadron in the Marine Corps."

• http://www.foxnews.com/tech/slideshow/2014/02/12/60-best-shots-military-tech-in-action/?intcmp=trending#slide=56

"Feb. 1, 2013: A four-ship of F-35A Lightning IIs returns to Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., after a sortie. Source: U.S. Air Force photo/Capt. Edward Schmitt"
— FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The Death Spiral begins

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-15/pentagon-said-to-seek-34-lockheed-f-35s-instead-of-42.html

Is Tony Capaccio a RS for this unannounced cutback? Hcobb (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It is Bloomberg so it meets RS. - Ahunt (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

South Korea

There are 9 citations to prove that South Korea is interested in F-35s. Nine? Are South Koreans desperate, who are they kidding? Maybe they need nine citations to prove they need non-plastic surgery women too. I know the citations pertain to the section, but I bet at least 5 of those citations are about South Korea wanting a job. Dark Liberty (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I see 3 cites in the Lead that say South Korea selected the F-35 for an order. Only actual operators or users that have placed firm orders are supposed to be listed in the Operators section per WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS guidelines. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Mandiant

Information regarding the compromise of the F-35 should end at the BAE systems.

"In February 2013, it was feared that China had intercepted telemetry from F-35 test flights.[54] In 2013, a report from Mandiant tracked the hacking to a unit of the People's Liberation Army.[55]"

• telemetry is not going to assist China in any way or form if they cannot put together a basic working prototype with the same flight characteristics as the F-35.

• the use of "feared" indicates an author intentionally placed it there.

• I checked the article and reference [54], there was absolutely no information on any flight tests and telemetry. It's sad to insert phrases that are not even sourced that stay there for months or even years because no one bothers to check.

I wanted to know the whereabouts of the F-35 data and who was behind it, and spent several days researching the firm Mandiant, and it turns out, they are a independently-funded security firm. I checked the Youtube videos on Mandiant, and the method they used to implicate China was to demonstrate how setting up a Google+ account could be used to compromise Pentagon-level data.

When you hack, you use a Linux console, and you don't target files that do not exist on the Internet. It was clearly, a demonstration video.

The other problem with Mandiant is that they seem to serve no other purpose than to create media reports (if you look closely on the Wikipedia entry). If Sophos, Kaspersky, Symantec, and McAfee filed a declassified report, then it would be credible.

Finally, another problem regarding the validity of the information [55] is from a media source called Voice of America, which is a commercial and quasi-government entity. Furthermore, if someone bothered to read the content in [55], it was about the rejection of the Mandiant report. If the Pentagon released a report, then we can add that to the article.

Per WP:BOLD I have removed these 2 phrases.

Dark Liberty (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

JAGM

I have doubts that the F-35 can use the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile. The Navy and Marine Corps initially intended to deploy the missile from their F-35B/Cs, but pulled out of the program in 2012. They apparently re-entered it this year, but new text here now makes it seem like the JAGM has scaled-down capabilities, specifically not being able to be deployed from fast-moving jets. According to the link the Navy, which would probably include the Marines, plan to replace the AGM-65 Maverick with the GBU-53/B SDB II, which was a missile the JAGM was at first supposed to replace. The Air Force was never part of the JAGM program. With that, I don't think the JAGM should be on the armament list, and think the Maverick should be put on. Even if the Navy replaces the Maverick with the SDB II, it is still used by the Air Force and so would probably be deployed on the F-35. America789 (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Software problems will set back F-35 joint strike fighter another year (report)

• Software problems will set back F-35 joint strike fighter another year – report • Serviceable†Villain 13:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

We had the 13 month delay up there long before the GAO said a peep. Hcobb (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

IDF/AF total planned purchases

I have added the total number of planned 35s to Israel in "operators". My first citation so hope I have got it right. Irondome (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Your edits look fine to me! - Ahunt (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• The Flight source lists 19 planned to be ordered for Israel, not actually ordered (note asterisk and corresponding footnote). -Fnlayson (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The re-wording is fine to me. Thats totally acceptable. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• That was my first cut. The sources are not that consistent. I'll see what I can find on the 19 number. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

True. The sources seem to differ slightly on initial planned total. I've seen a figure of 20 also. Irondome (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsroyal-air-forces-no-617-squadron-to-fly-f-35b-fighter

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Costs and Inflation

Due to the long timeline of the program, cost estimates are usually calculated in different FY$, this is consistently used to misinform of the true cost increases in the program, 2014 GAO report provide the necessary details. This report states a development cost with Then Year dollars of $34.4 billion in 2001, in 2013 at an inflation of 2.5% this would be equal to $46.2 billion. The 2014 development cost being $55.2 billion, this is a 20% cost increase in development from 2001 predictions accounting for inflation.

The total program cost is often cited to be "double the cost" this also does not factor in inflation, in 2001 it was said to be $233 billion in 2013 it would be $313 billion, as of 2013 its estimated to be $390.4 billion, a 25% increase. A definite increase but a far cry from doubling.

I would like to propose adding these GAO factors(which can be updated as new GAO's come out) into the 1.3 Program Cost section and trimming any misleading paragraphs from that section to help reduce page size.

Eskodas (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Primary users field

Since the Primary users field is a constant irritation, can't we just list them by number of operational aircraft? That will at least keep the field blank for the next few years. Hcobb (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Or perhaps there can be a way to extra-protect this field? Transclude from a seperate article with extra lock? TGCP (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we have enough watchers (502) on the page to revert any non-standard changes. MilborneOne (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Helmet update

The Pentagon announced on thursday that it was halting work on the BAE helmet, and was now concentrating exclusively on the Elbit-Rockwell design. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/10/10/uk-lockheed-fighter-helmet-idUKBRE99910A20131010 Irondome (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

That info was added to the "Helmet-mounted display system" section a couple of days ago by Hcobb. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem Irondome (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Out of interest here is the latest iteration of the BAE helmet without skin and covered Twobells (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Quite a good pilot video here Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, they've updated the BAE Helmet quite considerably. Thanks, informative. Twobells (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Comparison to F-22 Raptor / F/A-18 Super Hornet

One of the most significant criticisms the F-35 has received is in comparison to the already-developed F-22. From what I've seen the F-22 outperforms the F-35 in every significant way once in the air; and many notable people on the political stage have mentioned this. But it's not just performance; it is also cost. Apparently the development costs + procurement costs per aircraft are higher for the F-35 than procuring an already fully-developed F-22. This isn't exactly a fair comparison but it is realistic. The F-22 article and this one mention that the F-35 is cheaper than the F-22, which isn't really the whole truth.

On the F/A-18 Super Hornet I'm not so sure; I haven't really seen as much solid comparison between the 2 jets, although from what I understand as a naval fighter the F/A-18 more directly competes with the F-35 in its niche, so a comparison between the 2 might be helpful for the article to help the reader better understand the role of the F-35 and what it will potentially be replacing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TooManyWombats (talk • contribs) 14:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Comparisons are a very tricky thing on Wikipedia, because if we write or own comparison from different sources then we run afoul of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. To add this what we need is a reference that actually compares them and draws its own conclusions, that we can quote from. - 14:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Criticism as a seperate article

I suggest all criticism material is diverted to a new article. Call it whatever you like. That way we have two descrete articles. The article at the moment encapsulating everything is becoming intimidating to many of our readers I suspect, in addition to its length. Development narrative and criticism has been entangled in main text. I personally am finding the article increasingly difficult to enjoy (and that is an often overlooked quality in WP articles), and I have been stalking and contributing in a minute way for months. Lets just make a clean break and let those who wish to work on an issues article. By that method we have two seperate developing articles, each with its own dynamic. I would further suggest that the putative new article be given SP status. Consensus? Any comments below welcome. Irondome (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The article is now a whopping 217 thousand characters, well above the 100k suggested limit for Wikipedia articles to remain concise. Something should be spun off to its own article, like we did with Procurement of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. The F-35 article is of technical nature, and can thus easily be divided and concentrated. TGCP (talk) 09:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Any other comments on this? Its been a month. Irondome (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Diverting all the criticism would clearly be improper. The correct approach, per Wikipedia:Summary style, is:

• Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving summaries in their place.
• Summary sections are linked to the detailed article with a
  Main article: [[:<name of detailed article>]]
  or comparable template.

Note that part about "leaving summaries in their place." You can't just say "There've been some criticisms, see the criticisms article." There has to be a reasonably substantive summary, which omits some details (the ones that appear only in the daughter article) but which fairly states the main points. Under the best of circumstances, writing a good summary is a lot of work. If the topic is controversial, the attempt can entail an enormous amount of discussion, as POV-pushers seek to remove from the summary the points that don't support their side.

I suggest that no one do a unilateral spinoff. Instead, anyone who thinks that a daughter article is the way to go should first do the work of writing the summary and post it here for discussion.

Incidentally, I came here because I read this piece: "Ruth: Botching F-35 dwarfs ACA website". It has some points that aren't currently addressed in the article. ("Gilmore told the committee that after 12 years and $400 billion, the F-35 can't fly at night. It can't fly in bad weather. It can't fly if there is lightning in the area. It can't fly in close formation. It can't be allowed to stall in training, which is an essential protocol for any aviator, even student pilots at the controls of a single-engine Cessna.") Some of this material should be integrated into our article. JamesMLane t c 02:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You would do better to read more informed sources on this topic than a 500 word op-ed piece. For example, the F-35 most certainly can fly in formation [1]. WeldNeck (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You would do better to read what was said by the person to whom you're responding. Wikipedia editor JamesMLane didn't say that the F-35 can't "fly in formation"; he was quoting a professional newspaper editor who was himself relaying testimony a Pentagon official gave before the Senate; this official apparently said that, at the time of his testimony, the F-35 hadn't yet proven its ability to fly reliably in close formation, including at night, presumably meaning on a genuine operational mission. Since the aircraft in the video you reference aren't operational yet - none are - your response doesn't address the point JamesMLane made. BLZebubba (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

We should also look at WP:Criticism, in particular sections about "When an article gets too large" and "Separate articles devoted to criticism" : parking criticism away is discouraged. However, as seen in Approaches, if F-35 can be compared to BBC or Coca-Cola, a separate article may be warranted. TGCP (talk) 11:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• There are related comments below - ^theWOLFchild 19:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Aren't the critics of the F-35 critics of the Fifth-generation jet fighter in general? Couldn't we just move all the belly aching over there where nobody will be bothered by it? Hcobb (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That's actually a good idea. Irondome (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

To call it "belly aching" is a bit too dismissive. It's certainly not a good reason to disconnect the main article from the criticism. There has to be some attempt to show both sides, otherwise it can't be even handed. Flanker235 (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Criticism should always be a separate article. This entry is burdened by an excess of largely unsubstantiated allegations and allegations that have been disproven. It reads like a laundry list of complaints by critics of military spending as opposed to substantial (and substantiated) critiques. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.9.7.206 (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a good first step is to eliminate the PR doublespeak material first. Example: "The Marines plan to use the F-35B from "unimproved surfaces at austere bases" but with "special, high-temperature concrete designed to handle the heat."" What twaddle! An unimproved surface at an austere base by definition will not have special anything, much less custom-built high temp concrete pads. A far simpler article would just point out that the F35B has significantly missed one of its primary design goals of being able to use unimproved surfaces at austere bases, and instead needs special, custom-built high temp concrete pads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.23.77 (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

To resolve article length issues, please consider separate articles for the F-35A, B and C models, with only the issues common to all models left on an "F-35 Lightning II/Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)" page. There really isn't any such thing as an "F-35" anymore - that was the name of a design program for a common "controlling and defense chassis" that could suffice to meet three different sets of performance parameters, with different parameters for each service. The resultant responses to those parameters took the form of three different development programs and now three different production (wisely or not) models - the F-35A, the F-35B and the F-35C. There really isn't any such thing as an "F-35" anymore and to speak of an F-35 aircraft at this point is, it seems to me, rather spurious; "F-35" refers to a common design effort to field a "chassis" that could be modified to field aircraft meeting the needs of each of the different US military services. The last time I saw it quoted, there's only about 35% commonality between all three aircraft. I think it's getting lost that in reality three aircraft are being developed and produced, not just one.

The "F-35" article should really be about Lockheed-Martin's ability to deliver on a set of performance parameters as established by each branch of the military. It would be interesting if somebody would put together a chart that separated and tracked by date the program and production costs common to all models (such as the final assembly factory, and engine development) separate from the costs particular to only one or two models; equally interesting would be a chart that tracked by date the establishing and achievement (or moving or failure to achieve, as appropriate) of each model's performance parameters. Only then can it be determined if Lockheed-Martin's and the DoD's "one chassis - three aircraft" approach to doing things with the F-35 saves money over having each service develop its own separate aircraft and is anything that needs to be replicated. Of course gathering and displaying this information would be a tremendous amount of work and I don't expect it will get done unless an outside source publishes it first, which I don't expect to happen. But it gives Wikipedia editors something to aspire to.

In any event I think at least summary criticism should be retained in the corresponding F-35 article and any forthcoming separate F-35A, F-35B and F-35C articles as long as it has at least historical value, with links to more detailed articles if F-35/JSF article size remains an issue. BLZebubba (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Going up the old dirt road

http://tv.defensenews.com/

Is Bogdan a RS for dirt field operations of the F-35B? Hcobb (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Service Ceiling

It was originally stated as 50,000ft or 50,000+ft. There is no source for 60,000ft and given the wing area and maximum speed of Mach 1.6 it's frankly impossible. Show me another fighter only capable of Mach 1.6 with a similar planform that has a service ceiling of 60,000ft? Seriously if there's anyone on wiki with a knowledge of aerodynamics I'd like them in on this one. Rafale - larger wings, top speed - Mach 1.8, service ceiling 50,000ft.Z07x10 (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

There does not appear to be a source for the 60,000ft number, at least not that I saw in the sources we have. Someone else is welcome to look through them as I could have missed it. However, what you are describing, making a change based on you own belief as to what is possible, is WP:OR. It does not matter what we believe it should be stated as. What matters is that we have sources that state what we put in the article.

I was looking for sources for the data when your initial change was reverted. While I put that on hold, I did intend to get back to it. My primary issue was that I found no authoritative source which made a statement on the issue. There were sources which made statements, but they did not agree and none of them addressed the issue directly. My plan was to put in a single top–bottom range of values with citations for both.— Makyen (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

True enough. It was originally stated as 50,000ft or 50,000+ft going back a year. Until a credible source is found, I propose leaving it at that.Z07x10 (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That statement is also not sourced. I think the best solution is to simply remove the ceiling stat until more information becomes available. NobodyMinus (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Prices -- without engines???

The prices are all currently provided in the table inside of the Procurement costs section of the article as prices that exclude the engine price.

Seems odd, as an aircraft without an engine can't really do anything. Since we are aiming here for an encyclopedic presentation of information to our readers, I would like to propose that the numbers be added that are for the total aircraft, with engines. If those numbers cannot be found with a good source, then we should just remove the misleading column from the table. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the whole table should go. It is largely incomplete and seems poorly sourced. The airframe and engine costs are separated in the AF budget data, maybe due to separate contracts. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

New Prices

To whomever changed the prices at the top of the article; I can't find them in your citation. I don't think they're in there, but it's a long document and I could have missed them (BTW, we should probably revert anyway because an SAR from a past year is more reliable than a procurement bill for a future year). If that is the case, would you kindly point them out to me and alter your link with "#page=PDF page number with prices here"? Thanks.

EDIT: Tracked down the poster, it was a throwaway with one edit, so I reverted the changes.

NobodyMinus (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Split the development section to a new article

I think the development section is waaaaaay too long. I believe the bulk of it can be moved into a new article, while a compressed version summarizes that article remains here. 108.228.145.163 (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I would concur, but it seems the program is not far enough along that operational units are beginning to take shape, with the aircraft transfering into actual use. Only by then would I say that the development phase (of which large parts still remains) can be de-emphasized. I can not easily find text in the article giving a clear status of the program, but it seems to be in a sort of training/test phase - not combat ready.

By the way, the Operator section is somewhat confusing. The headline is Orders, but the flying US units are also in that section. Maybe we should rearrange the section to show the units who are actually flying separate from the ones who are just hopeful but still groundlocked, particularly the non-US ones. TGCP (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a single combat-ready F-35 unit exists (ongoing aircrew and maintenance training notwithstanding); accordingly the entire weapons system remains in development. The F-35 program is a very odd duck in that it's producing aircraft that remain under development; still the F-35 program is nothing if it's not still a development program, the future of which remains very much a topic of public debate. So, making the development section a separate article would be inappropriate at this time, and the effort to do so seems more like an effort to obscure this aircraft's troubled development history. It will only be appropriate to move such remarks once all of the F-35 versions (A, B & C) have demonstrated their meeting their performance targets for acceptance - then development can be said to be successful, complete, and less of an issue in discussion of the aircraft itself. References in the F-35 article to a separate F-35 development history article would then be appropriate. BLZebubba (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thrust to weight with 50% Fuel

Hey, just a little question. If i calculate this ratio out of the ohter data, specifically the empty weight of 29,300 lb and 50% fuel weight which should be 9,125 lb it will result in 38,425 lb right? If i then calculate the T/W ratio with this weight and the 43,000lbf rated thrust, i end up with a thrust to weight ratio of 1.12. If i add the weight of 2 AIM-120 and 2 AIM-9, i still end up with a ratio of 1.09. Can anyone enligthen me what i do miss out? --2A02:120B:2C2B:6840:D058:CE06:FC33:7DBF (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia is poorly set up for aircraft articles. The only source for loaded weight anyone's found says 49,540 lb. If we subtract the empty weight of the aircraft and the weight of the aircraft's fuel, we get 1,944 lb of stores. Since the ejector racks and pylons are included in the empty weight, we can see that if we add 4 AIM-120 (Which is the intended air-to-air loadout, not 2 AIM-120 and 2 AIM-9) we get a thrust/weight of 1.08 at half fuel. I'm fairly certain the difference comes from the fact that the sourced loaded weight is not corrected for the weight reduction program, but it's hard to tell because all of the links that sourced it are dead.

NobodyMinus (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the three F-35 versions (A, B & C) have different empty weights. You don't specify which version you're talking about. In fact there's really no such thing as an "F-35"; the F-35 A, B and C are really three separate weapons systems, with only something like 35% commonality between them all. BLZebubba (talk) 07:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Program Cost

Hey, is there any particular reason we use the projected lifetime cost here instead of the projected cost-at-delivery like other fighter articles?

NobodyMinus (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is: it's the most comprehensive and fair basis for cost comparison; that other Wikipedia articles fail to use it is no reason for not using it in this one.

For example, if two competing carrier-aircraft weapons-system proposals had the same initial fly-away cost but one had a projected service life of 3,000 traps before, say, needing to have its wing spar replaced (admittedly an exaggerated requirement), while its competitor was projected to need that re-fit only after 10,000 hours, the extra cost of 3⅓ spar replacements for the first weapon-system should also be included in any cost comparison between the two for the comparison to be fair and accurate. BLZebubba (talk) 07:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Guys, can we try to not cite things like Global Security and Deagal.com? Those are clearly not reliable sources. Air Power Australia's a bit on the sketchy side too, by the way. We should really try to stick to primary sources and periodicals, not blogs (Like APA. No, it doesn't qualify as a think tank if one person contributes 88% of all of the papers) and (to put it bluntly) lie aggregates (Like GS and Deagal). -NobodyMinus (talk) 04:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Um, no - we can't. For what it's worth I've never heard of "Deagal.Com" but any suggestion that GlobalSecurity.Org is unreliable is abject garbage - it's widely relied upon and cited by reliable mainstream periodicals (like those you just requested reliance on). And while your call for exclusive reliance on primary sources and periodicals is noteworthy and admirable, unfortunately for better or worse it doesn't conform to Wikipedia policy, which primarily requires that information included in a Wikipedia article have been published in a reliable source somewhere - even if only on-line - and not be original research by the person posting the remark. And your complaint that Air Power Australia ("APA") "... doesn't qualify as a think tank ..." is a bit ironic in light of your stated views of APA given that some think tanks can be counted on for little more than passing out disingenuous biased cheerleading trash.

It really isn't your place to decide, without evidence, what is a reliable source and what isn't. If an editor supplies a remark that's adequately sourced, unless it's from a demonstrably unreliable source, or it's objectively and demonstrably outdated or otherwise inaccurate, leave its essential content intact. To quote Wikipedia's editing policy,

As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies: Neutral point of view (which doesn't mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research.

If you find adequately-sourced contradictory information, add it following the remark it contradicts and let readers decide for themselves who's right; if you feel strongly about your information and that the original information is wrong, say so and why and also put a remark on the article talk page that you think the original remark is trash and why. But removing the properly-sourced arguments of other editors is disruptive. BLZebubba (talk) 07:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Is bursting into flames notable?

http://www.stripes.com/military-s-pricey-f-35-fighter-jet-catches-fire-during-takeoff-in-florida-1.290335

Can we split off the failures into per-month articles, so as to not exceed the length limit? Hcobb (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No like most of the so called problems and issues it is not that important or notable. I suspect a prune rather than an expansion would be a better way to go. MilborneOne (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that most of these incidents are really "routine teething troubles" and aren't really notable. All aircraft under development go through similar sorts of issues and they get resolved. If one is serious enough to require re-design work or shelves the aircraft entirely then they should be noted, otherwise they are really WP:TRIVIA. - Ahunt (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it notable now? http://www.stripes.com/news/entire-f-35-fleet-grounded-after-fighter-jet-catches-fire-during-takeoff-1.290867 Hcobb (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

No - fairly standard practice if the cause is not known. MilborneOne (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, this is a routine grounding due to a fire. They usually do that just for safety's sake. As soon as they figure out that it was an afterburner fuel supply nut that wasn't torqued properly or something similar they will amend the maintenance manual and carry on. Just normal teething problems with a new aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

When a "production" aircraft still under development (how's that for an oxymoron?) has its equally-unproven engine burst into flames and leave parts on the runway such that it can't perform a task as basic as flying, causing fleetwide concern about its airworthiness, it's not "trivial" as you disingenuously indicate; your remark that this problem is nothing more than an improperly torqued "afterburner fuel supply nut" is asininely presumptuous. By no means is it apparent yet that this incident represents "normal teething problems", and it deserves mention in this article just as have the numerous previous groundings of the various "production" models of this aircraft. When the latest grounding order is lifted, that too, as well as what the problem was, can be noted.BLZebubba (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

User:BLZebubba: your personal attack above is not acceptable conduct on Wikipedia and detracts from civil communication. Please re-phrase your comment to remove it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

WP is not a news source, HCobb's continual addition of all negative info (and little positive info) regarding the F-35 notwithstanding. The fleetwide grounding of an in-development aircract may well prove to be encyclopedic, but at this point it isn't clear either way. WP errs on the side of leaving out info until its relevance can be proven. As to a "production" aircraft still being "under development", there are reasonable explanations for it, but that's beyond the scope of this talk page. But if your're actually interested in knowing why, Cook–Craigie plan is a good place to start. - BilCat (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The remark to which "Ahunt" objects does not contain any personal attack: it does not suggest that Ahunt is irretrievably disingenuous or asinine; rather, it indicates only that Ahunt's comment was disingenuous and asinine. Words, especially adjectives, have meanings; "disingenuous" means "1) Not noble; unbecoming true honor or dignity; mean; unworthy; fake or deceptive. 2) Not ingenuous; not frank or open; uncandid; unworthily or meanly artful"; "asinine" means "1) Failing to exercise intelligence or judgment; ridiculously below average rationality; 2) Of, pertaining to, or characteristic of donkeys." A rational person of average intelligence ought to easily be able to see that an incident involving an aircraft bursting into flames and dumping engine parts on the runway - when that aircraft is in the absolute earliest stages of its service life - isn't automatically "trivial", "not notable", nor an example of "routine teething trouble", and no amount of chiming-in and ganging-on by Ahunt's mates in the PR office in which he clearly works is going to change that. In addition to disingenuous and asinine, remarks can be idiotic, ridiculous, lame or due any number of other descriptors; when encountered they deserve to be pointed out as such. Ahunt's qualifies as I've labeled it.

If it makes Ahunt feel better, to clarify: I didn't say he was perpetually disingenuous and asinine, but only that his remark was. With the definitions I've provided you herein - you, undoubtedly an estimable person of at least average intelligence, ought to be able to see that too, so my remark stands as written, absent violations of any Wikipedia policies with which you try to cover your censorious efforts. Now, if I'd said "You are asinine ... disingenuous ... a donkey ... idiotic" et al - well that might be very different, amounting to a personal attack even. But I didn't say any such thing....

As for HCobb, he has no obligation to supply "positive" (in who's eyes?) information, nor is it your place to criticize anything he supplies as long as it's properly sourced. And as for your suggestion that "WP errs on the side of leaving out info until its relevance can be proven" [sic], that's utter poppycock.BLZebubba (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Added to your personal attacks above is your lack of good faith. Comments such as "You and one of your mates in the PR office in which you work doesn't constitute a consensus" are unnecessary and completely uncalled for. - BilCat (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

And now you're falsely accusing me of lying?? See here for the lifting of the grounding. - BilCat (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No - I'm accurately accusing you of lying. Do you even bother to read the information you cite? It's dated June 18 and relates to the previous grounding. The current grounding has not been lifted - in fact, my repeatedly-vandalized remarks document intensification of the original grounding from a week ago, which only covered Eglin ships at that time. Again, when the current grounding is (eventually?) lifted, that can be documented herein too. Readers and taxpayers have a right to be informed of a troubled development history of any public works project.BLZebubba (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

User:BLZebubba: Your attempts to justify your carrying out personal attacks, continuing more personal attacks, falsely accusing other editors of lying, lack of good faith and now edit warring over including the text against consensus show that you lack the collaborative skills to work on Wikipedia. Please remove your personal attack text, revert your addition of the text and engage here in good faith to gain consensus. Failing to do this or further personal attacks may result in you being blocked from further editing. - Ahunt (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Did you even bother to read what I removed here, which is what you called lying? No, you did not, or you would have seen that it was about the previous grounding! Additionally, the USMC has lifted the grounding on its aircraft after the curent incident, per this source. - BilCat (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Now you're just trying to reverse your tracks and make it look like you didn't attempt to cite irrelevant information in support of your colleague Ahunt's vandalism until I pointed it out.

Here's what I propose: that the text originally reverted by Ahunt be kept with the following corrective addition that reflects the second, relevant source you cited in your response to me herein (since the Washington Post info you came up with is almost certainly reliable even if the information I cited (by Bill Riales at WKRG in my remark to your) is more recent):

"On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 all training in all models of the F-35 was halted by the Pentagon's Joint Program Office following a fire that occurred two days earlier (June 23, 2014) in the engine area of an F-35A (i.e. USAF version) that was beginning a training flight at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.[410] Though a Base spokesman stated that training flights were expected to have resumed at Eglin by Wednesday, June 25, 2014,[411] it became clear that the incident was more serious than originally assumed, with engine parts from the burned aircraft having been discovered on the runway during the incident investigation, indicating a substantial engine failure had occurred that required further investigation before any models of the aircraft could be allowed by the Pentagon to return to the air.[412] On June 27, 2014 the Marine Corps announced it was resuming flying its version of the airplane, the F-35B, in anticipation of promoting sales at the Royal International Air Tattoo and the Farnborough Air Show in Great Britain later in July, 2014. The Air Force (F-35A) and Navy (F-35C) versions of the airplane remain grounded until the Pentagon's concerns about engine failure in the aircraft are allayed."[cite Washington Post]BLZebubba (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

And as for any remarks herein by me that Ahunt takes offense to, I'll clean them up if you and Ahunt agree to my proposed "consensus" text and, in the future from here on out, to not remove accurate, properly sourced and non-repetitive remarks - Wikipedia isn't anyone's or any organization's personal or corporate PR platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BLZebubba (talk • contribs)

I'm out of here until tomorrow (July 3, 2014). — Preceding unsigned comment added by BLZebubba (talk • contribs)

User:BLZebubba said "And as for any remarks herein by me that Ahunt takes offense to, I'll remove them if you and Ahunt agree to my proposed "consensus" text and, in the future from here on out, to not remove accurate, properly sourced and non-repetitive remarks". No, that is extortion and bullying. You will stop your personal attacks against other editors here and negotiate in good faith or you will be blocked.

As far as your proposed wording goes, it falls afoul of WP:UNDUE as it is far too much text on a very minor incident. As User:BilCat's ref shows the grounding order was routine for a minor snag and has already been removed from part of the fleet. The ref Bilcat cited quoted Richard Aboulafia as saying this is a "teething problem" and "If this is cleared up quickly, it won’t be a problem..." There is no justification for including every minor snag and grounding in an article that is an overview of the aircraft type, it is just non-neutral trivia and doesn't belong in this article. - Ahunt (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Apparently bursting into flames is inaccurate. More correct to say the engine exploded. Hence more suitable to F135 article, other than note here that flimsy airframe fails to contain such things.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0F72F020140702?irpc=932

Hcobb (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that description, that does make it fairly clear that it was an engine failure. It says "third stage", but didn't specify turbine or compressor, but it has enough detail there that I agree with you that it belongs in the F135 article, not here. - Ahunt (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

And the big foreign debut is canceled. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/510e852a-02cc-11e4-81b1-00144feab7de.html Are we there yet? Hcobb (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this is now sufficiently notable for inclusion. dropping out of Farnborough due to a technical failiure is big enough Irondome (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

ainonline.com says transatlantic deployment "delayed" not cancelled, but no show at Farnborough: [2] But also says wrt RIAT: "The F-35s will not be doing vertical takeoffs or landings during the displays." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I certainly think that if there is disruption to the schedule at RIAT as well, that is the "red line" for it's inclusion. That and F. would be notable for a more critical technical issue. Irondome (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I see the knowing of a serious engine issue that's been widely reported in the public press, and then trying to obscure depiction of that issue in a Wikipedia article about the only aircraft that engine was designed to be used in, by shunting it off to a separate engine article while not depicting it in the aircraft article itself, as, again, disingenuous.

As of now there is no F-35 (all variants) without some version of the F135 in it. Interested readers wanting to know about the F-35 program as a whole are going to look for it under "F-35", and that is where they should also find at least some significant reportage about the fitness of its engine. A catastrophic engine failure of the sort experienced by the F-35A on June 23, 2014 at Eglin AFB in Florida - an explosion resulting in the possible write-off of the entire aircraft - is not a mere technical detail (nor is it "routine", "a minor snag", a "normal" or "routine teething problem", "not that important or notable", nor do "all aircraft under development go through similar sorts of issues, and they get resolved" ..., but I digress), so summary reporting of the incident and the gist of its implications belongs in the article on the aircraft to which the engine belongs - after all, these are, rightly or wrongly, production aircraft we're talking about now, with the public being on the hook for many more repairs than we would otherwise be if, say, only a handful of these aircraft were still being developed. That summary can and should link to a more detailed report on the issue at the engine article itself.

Issues that potentially impact the public dime are particularly important to cover in a space were most people interested in that topic are likely to see them without having to dig for them in the article's more obscure, musty spaces. In particular, if true I find it outrageous that, as stated in the Majumdar article in the Daily Beast referenced earlier herein, the taxpayer is on the hook for rectifying problems in all aircraft that have been delivered, even those that demonstrate the aircraft to be unfit for its intended purpose - this needs to be looked into and reported on.

I challenge any editor of this article to document any US aircraft originating development in the last fifty years that suffered a catastrophic engine failure during development and which then went on to full production with that same engine. While the "grounding" of aircraft following an incident affecting an aircraft's airworthiness may be routine protocol, the arising of the incident itself isn't necessarily so.

And Ahunt: you mischaracterize, in your remarks earlier herein, what Mr. Aboulafia said in the noted article that you reference. He says (in par. 5) that the F-35 program has experienced "a lot of teething problems"; he does not say that the engine explosion at hand is merely one of them, nor does he say that teething problems in and of themselves cannot be seriously detrimental to an aircraft's development - in fact he says the opposite.

With that said, technology marches ever onward, and with the survivability of the existing fleet of NATO aircraft questionable in a threat-intensive, MANPADS-laden environment below about 20,000', it seems we have little choice but to proceed with the development of this aircraft and suffer through it faults (engine explosions included) until we get them resolved, expensive though that may be. Whether we should repeat the F-35's development path - by trying to develop one airframe for three-plus services à la the F-111 - is a highly valid question that needs at least some discussion in an article that has a "Development" section; a separate ethically-written article on that development itself would seem to be very appropriate too. Given all the public yapping about the cost of the program at hand, such article should definitely cover the fact that the "F-35" program is in truth, assuming all three versions obtain IOC ("Initial Operating Capability"), not one aircraft but three - thus the expense of its/their development.BLZebubba (talk) 10:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I just got back after a couple of days. I noticed http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28146412 before I went but didn't have time to add it. Note it is a completely unrelated subject but it is notable for the article mentioning the issue in some depth at the end. I think it should be added. Do we have consensus now, with the growing list of RS's mentioning it? Now the BBC. We can just say yay or nay here. Just a quick straw poll. Irondome (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The no-vertical landings in UK was already noted before the aircraft exploded, as there are no rough hastily prepared fields in the UK with the specially prepared hardened concrete landing pads. (As the USMC requires.) Hcobb (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Dunno about the technicalities of that. There are still reinforced pads for Harrier, there is no evidence that they have been destroyed. Technicalities. Could the F-35 VTOL land on a Harrier-thrust designed pad?. The pads for Harrier are still here, esp in the West country FAA base at RNAS Yeovilton (HMS Heron). Irondome (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's a notice in favor of the F-35, so I'm contractually forbidden from adding it myself. http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-f-35b-vertical-landings-doubt-uk "the difference between F‑35B exhaust temperature and that of the AV-8B is very small, and is not anticipated to require any significant Conops [concept of operations] changes" Hcobb (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, anyone might even think the F-35 had been designed to, in some way, "take over" from the Harrier? Ha. I guess it could land just about anywhere. but that special safety consideration apply at an airshow? Martinevans123 (talk)

BilCat: thank you for the reference to the "Cook-Craigie Plan"; I look forward to tracking down the original source material.BLZebubba (talk) 10:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

F-35 Article Edit

Folks - I have partially reverted edits made by one "Andyhowlett" a few days ago and placed the following remark on his User Talk page:

I have restored a little of the language you removed on July eleventh regarding the recent engine fire in the F-35A. It's a verifiable fact that the fire occurred at the start of what was a training flight for F-35 aircrew - the original reference I supplied makes this clear. It's a pertinent, relevant fact given that so many "production" models of this aircraft have already been purchased from Lockheed Martin, and pilots and maintenance crews are training for its deployment despite the fact that no models of this aircraft have yet established achievement of all of its design parameters. It needs to be clear that this fire occurred on a training flight - in a plane that had already been delivered to the US Air Force ostensibly as fit for service - as opposed to a testing and development flight.

Furthermore, for anyone to state so shortly after the Class A incident was investigated that flying was expected to resume a couple of days later clearly represents an assumption, not a "belief" (do beliefs have any place in the analysis of technology?) nor an informed take on the facts - I think the fact that, as we speak more than two weeks later, the grounding is ongoing, makes this clear.

Otherwise I have no problem with your edit beyond the fact that it leaves vague the date of the grounding."

The material Andyhowlett removed was factually correct and relevant; furthermore he did not notify the Wiki in advance that he wanted to make such edits.

Separately, if the recent F135 engine fire proves (so far as is known) to be a one-off event not relevant to production of the engines as a whole, I propose moving the details of this material to the Engine section of this article, with only a brief summary mentioning it in the F-35 article's Development and Training sections, referenced to the Engine-section verbiage. That this incident happened in a delivered training aircraft is noteworthy. However this incident is about the sufficiency of the development of the engine and doesn't have a whole lot to do with the integrity of the military's F-35 training. Greater detail should of course also be reported at the F135 page. I'll be happy to write the necessary verbiage when the time comes i.e when the military clears all models of the F-35 for a return to flying if not before. BLZebubba (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

F-35 article edits today (7/14)

Folks, I have reverted edits made earlier this morning by "Fnlayson" and placed the following comment on his User talk page:

Fnlayson, the edits you made earlier this morning have been reverted by me. In addition to being done to sourced material, your edits significantly obscure the fact that the incident at hand occurred during a training mission (that's the whole reason the original comment appears at present under "Training" i.e. to an aircraft that had already been delivered as fit for training missions (and paid for by taxpayers). Furthermore it appears your edits were done oblivious to the considerable commentary that's been expended this topic. Grammatical and usage changes are OK, but please do not make other changes to sourced content without explaining their validity first or demonstrably proving the edited remarks to have been incorrect. BLZebubba (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• The sentence already says training aircraft were grounded. The 'training mission' part seems minor. No reason to make such a big deal about such small details here, imo. I added the training part back, but you still reverted my edit. No reason to post the same message in two place. Just use the article's talk page; that's its purpose. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's best to open the paragraph with most important upshot of the report cited for the incident at hand: that all training in all models of the F-35 was suddenly halted; that there was a fire in one aircraft engine, which your revision starts with, seems secondary to what I wrote - it explains what I wrote. Furthermore your edit takes away the part about the military stating that flying was expected to resume in a couple of days before anything was really known about the incident; that the military says such (baseless) things for public consumption is relevant and should also be reported.BLZebubba (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• They expected to be flying on 25 June, but the aircraft were grounded that same day. The former became obsolete/OBE with the full grounding; this text also did not make much sense being out of order. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Your explanations don't match what what your edits do. That a military representative said the plane would be flying a couple of days later, only to have the grounding continue as I write, is not now nor will it ever be obsolete. Most importantly your edits obscure the major fact that all training in all models of this aircraft has been suddenly halted.

My material is accurately sourced as originally written. Please do not remove it again. Removing properly sourced, accurate material constitutes vandalism per Wikipedia guidelines. BLZebubba (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring to get your own way. You are now in violation of WP:3RR and have been formally warned on your talk page. User:Fnlayson's version is better and your bad-faith accusations of vandalism constitute uncivil behavior as well. - Ahunt (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop accusing editors of reverting vandalism simply to get their own way.

I've reverted edits that try to hide the fact that a military official overtly tried to downplay the seriousness of the documented incident without knowing what the facts were while knowing an investiigation would be taking place.

It appears that you don't understand the difference in the emphasis of what I originally wrote versus how Fnlayson's edits alter it for the worse, nor do you appear to understand that that removal of properly sourced and accurate remarks constitutes vandalism per Wikipedia policy. It's also demonstrably true that the editor for whom you're now sticking up conducted his vandalism without publicly discussing them on the Talk page beforehand.

There's a big difference between inserting original true sourced remarks into an article and the revising of such remarks without honest explanation or discussion beforehand.

Any further attempts to remove sourced material will be dealt with as prescribed by Wikipedia policy and guidelines. BLZebubba (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Your continued threats and bullying are going to result in a block. Please read and abide by WP:CIVIL. - Ahunt (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahunt and Fnlayson: neither of you have any legitimate basis for your removal of accurate, relevant and sourced information. There is no legitimate basis for your removal or revision of such information in the article at hand, nor did you attempt to obtain any consensus beforehand, much less achieve it. Furthermore, Ahunt, your protests about threats and bullying are utterly ironic and without any merit whatsoever.

Your behavior in this matter seems to me to constitute a violation of Wikipedia policy (WP:SNEAKY, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, WP:GAME) and will be vigorously opposed within the bounds of Wikipedia policy. Accordingly you have been so notified on your personal Talk Pages. (BLZebubba (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

And the same goes for you, "207.157.121.52": (WP:SNEAKY, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, WP:GAME). Interesting how someone who's never written a word about the F-35 weighs in now. BLZebubba (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

User:BLZebubba: your extreme lack of good faith, constant personal attacks, for which you have been warned, conspiracy theories, edit warring, harassment and your inability to accept the consensus of the other editors on this article means that it is really time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. The consensus here and in the article text itself is that your proposed changes have been rejected. No amount of bullying is going to result in you getting your way, so please move on. - Ahunt (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Ahunt: your accusations are hysterically disproportionate and without merit. All of my contributions to Wikipedia have begun in good faith; any deviations therefrom have also been made in good faith based on evidence. There have been no "constant personal attacks", no edit-warring to which you did not contribute (whether complained about or not), no harassment whatsoever, and the consensus you allege is fantasy. There's been no bullying so why bring it up?BLZebubba (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Just my opinion, I think this particular accident is notable on the account that it caused a suspension of training and eventual grounding of the aircraft fleet. As a side note, this article is waaaaaay too long. Some of the sections can easily be trimmed down. 108.228.145.163 (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This article fails to note in any detail the flight restrictions under which all F-35s currently operate due to the June engine disintegration and fire - this omission needs to be fixed, in my opinion. BLZebubba (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Nimitz

Last I've seen on this.

http://www.stripes.com/news/navy-readies-for-1st-f-35-carrier-landing-1.309808

Hcobb (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

FlightGlobal states testing is to begin on November 3, in last paragraph of that article, which is dated 29 October. We definitely need a reliable source for the testing being cancelled. The ship may well have returned to port as the user has claimed, but only temporarily. - BilCat (talk) 06:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's a briefing from yesterday. http://news.usni.org/2014/10/31/f-35cs-first-carrier-landing-scheduled-next-week Hcobb (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Another recent ref, "Lockheed's F-35 fighter to start testing on USS Nimitz carrier" [3] Reuters, eight hours ago. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

And it's happened. http://www.ibtimes.com/1-trillion-lockheed-martin-f-35c-makes-historic-landing-uss-nimitz-1718123 Hcobb (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing: Second batch of US F-35 aircraft to Israel

Is this US-Israel arrangement in the article herein? I didn't find it with a 'search'.

Headline-1: Israel to buy second batch of US F-35 fighters

• http://news.yahoo.com/israel-buy-second-batch-US-F-35-fighters-172955888.html

QUOTE: "Israel to buy second batch of US F-35 fighters" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

The article has a section on the F-35I it also has a link to Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Israeli procurement where even more information is included. MilborneOne (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

can we use this anywhere?

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-to-buy-second-squadron-of-stealth-f-35-jets/. It has some interesting comments from senior Israeli officials. Apologies, I did not see the above thread where other sources have been shown. Irondome (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Added to Moshe Arens. Hcobb (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice edit. I was thinking of most of the cited article as being an interesting insight into current IDF ground force training budgetery issues, and the still obviously serious doubts held by some as to the purchase, as opposed to the bald procurement fact. Irondome (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

At the moment it is the opinion of one person. (Unlike say the CRH which is widely considered inadequate.) Hcobb (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreement in principle, although not formal. TGCP (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

---

More New News Today

Headline-2: Clean Sweep: F-35 Fighter Confounds Critics With Perfect Performance In First Tests At Sea

• http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2014/11/21/clean-sweep-f-35-fighter-confounds-critics-with-perfect-performance-in-first-tests-at-sea/

QUOTE: "There’s a tradition in the U.S. Navy that when missions are a complete success, a broom gets raised up the mast to signal a “clean sweep.” That’s what happened on November 14 when the F-35C Lightning II completed its first series of developmental tests on the U.S.S. Nimitz aircraft carrier. Sailors sent a broom up the mast below the flag to signal the tests had gone very well. How well? For starters, the two weeks of scheduled tests were completed three days early with 100% of threshold test points accomplished. For the first time ever, a new carrier-based aircraft conducted night operations during its initial round of testing at sea — operations that are usually performed in later rounds. As one Navy test pilot observed in an official news release, “It’s unheard of to conduct night ops on the first det,” meaning developmental test." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

Headline-3: US Air Force: Fighter milestone: F-22s and F-35s train together for the first time

• http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/11/19/fighter-milestone-f-22s-and-f-35s-train-together-for-first-time/?intcmp=features

QUOTE: "The Air Force got a glimpse of its high-tech future recently as the costly and controversial new F-22 Raptor aircraft undertook its first training mission with next-generation F-35A Lightning strike fighters. Four F-22s from Joint Base Langley-Eustis in Virginia joined F-35s from the 33rd Fighter Wing for integration training at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida earlier this month." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

USMC's new con of ops

http://aviationweek.com/blog/marines-shift-f-35-deployment-plans

How is a location that's shooting anti-ship missiles at you not hostile? Hcobb (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Please reference the specific edit and content you wish to discuss (with diffs). We will not respond to open ended questions that lack any context. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

With regard to this addition, setting up forward bases for refueling for the AV-8 and helicopters during combat have been done before. The main point of the Aviation Week article is about using smaller forward bases and doing maintenance elsewhere. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hot fuel issue?

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-f-35s-latest-technical-problem-2014-12 So instead of trying to add another modification to an aircraft already wrought with cost overruns, the decision has been made to paint the fuel trucks.

Worth a mention? Hcobb (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No. - BilCat (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Note that there is an update to the story here that is a bit less of the sky-is-falling tone of the first attempt at a non-story. - BilCat (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Time to change status of first I.D.F/ A.F squadron from planned to ordered?

Just putting this up for consensus. The new sources that mention the agreement for the extra 25 examples,and the official opening of the facility for the manufacture of the 811 wing pairs in the presence of some major notables from LM and the U.S.A.F last week, seem to mention or indicate that the first 19 is a firm order now. Even the airframes are being allocated to specific production batches. I would suggest this is a good time to change the IDF detail on the users lists. I would suggest moving the Israel entry from planned purchases to operators. Israel has a stronger case for inclusion than some of the current "operators". Turkey for example. Irondome (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

A deafening silence. Can I have some reaction please? Irondome (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

See WP:SILENCE - Ahunt (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. I have never seen that section before, thanks. I am assuming there is a form of tacit consent here. I have been around long enough now that fellow eds should know big disruptive eds are not my style. Grateful for response Irondome (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I am glad that was helpful. I guess everyone here trusts you! - Ahunt (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

A novel sensation :) Irondome (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to make the changes of IDF status to add to operators list. Last orders for any concerns here, as I think the case for Israeli operator status can now be supported. Will make edit in next couple of days. Cheers Irondome (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

IAF basing edit

@User:Fnlayson I concur with your edit. Let's wait till we see the footage of the first examples to land there :) Cheers for the positive input. Irondome (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Lightning II name

Please add clarification of the name, I assume it is a reference to the Lockheed P-38 Lightning? John a s (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The "Lightning II" name is explained and cited in the 3rd paragraph of the Design phase subsection of the article already. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad the English Electric Lighting gets a mention! John a s (talk) 11:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Superior "effectiveness"

How was it calculated that the F35 would be "four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air combat, eight times more effective in air-to-ground combat, and three times more effective in reconnaissance and suppression of air defenses"? Obviously this did not take into account greater unit cost or reduced numbers, both of which would surely offset greater "effectiveness".Royalcourtier (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Mission-critical effectiveness in the air is different than cost savings. But the flight effectiveness estimate is probably not sourced, is it? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Clearly its hype, some experts call the F35 a Turkey [4] SaintAviator lets talk 06:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Joint Strike Fighter Survivability and Lethality Failure

Scroll down to point # 2.

The JSF program is almost unique historically in the extent to which its intended survivability and lethality are mismatched against the operational environment in which the aircraft is intended to be used. These publications detail the scope, scale and nature of the program's failures in these areas. [5] SaintAviator lets talk 06:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure it is relevant to this article but you can start a Opposition to Australian F-35 Purchase article if you want or find a blog. MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No this is the place. Its post purchase assessment, using good Au sources including Hansard (Govt) records. Heres some more [6] Lets just be clear. I hope people dont object to new material because its Negative about this plane. SaintAviator lets talk 23:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The flawed F-35 Fighter was Too Big to Kill, thats the problem. The flaws remain. [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-22/flawed-f-35-fighter-too-big-to-kill-as-lockheed-hooks-45-states.html SaintAviator lets talk 00:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

F35 will be the Prey

Built to be the deadliest hunter killer aircraft of all time, the F-35 has quite literally become the hunted. In every scenario that the F-35 has been wargamed against Su-30 Flankers, the Russian aircraft have emerged winners. America’s newest stealth aircraft – costing $191 million per unit – is riddled with such critical design flaws that it’s likely to get blown away in a shootout with the super-maneuverable Sukhois.

Stubby wings (that reduce lift and maneuverability), a bulbous fuselage (that makes it less aerodynamic) low speed and a super hot engine (which a half decent radar can identify) are just a few of the major flaws that will expose its vulnerability during air combat. [7] SaintAviator lets talk 06:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

All speculation and made-up stuff and not really relevant to improving the article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is opinion mostly, but is published in a reliable source. Some quotes could be used if properly sourced I would think. - Ahunt (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes its a sound ref. Milborne, please remember WP is not a glossy sell article. This aircraft has serious problems. The Russian SU Flanker from 30 on are far and away superior. SaintAviator lets talk 23:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Cut the WP:SOAPBOXing please. Some aspects of the ref may be interesting, but your rather feverish personal opinion is not. Irondome (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk posts appear 'Soap' when an article has gone to far one way. This article is Pro F35. Denial about it is fruitless. SaintAviator lets talk 00:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article? You sound like a member of the Borg collective. Resistance is futile? Irondome (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Lol...look the plane is the problem, you dont have to sell it here. SaintAviator lets talk 00:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggest you wander over to the flanker article and worship there. You have no idea about my attitude to the aircraft quite obviously. Suggest you check out some of the vast talk threads on this subject also, much of it highly critical. I will let you get on with some reading. Or go and join a blog. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou for the suggestions, but Im up to speed already. SaintAviator lets talk 00:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Sweeping edits without seeking consensus

I suggest you seek consensus before making major edits such as you have been doing. Irondome (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Its pretty obvious the above posts here were put here to precede edits. I am also Being Bold. Do you have a problem with Reuters as a RS Irondome? SaintAviator lets talk 04:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I have a problem with editors unwilling to discuss major edits made without bothering to seek consensus with other editors yeah. BOLD is no defence against an unwillingness to discuss first as you appear to be doing. Irondome (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. BOLD does not give an editor carte blanche for imposing their own POV. Discuss. Irondome (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

These are not large edits. Im familiar with WP:BRD. Are you familiar with WP:BEBOLD. I repeat, do you have a problem with Reuters as a RS Irondome? SaintAviator lets talk 04:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

They are significant edits. At the moment a dialogue with the deaf. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is an issue. RS is a strawman here. It is the context that you are using them in. Upthread you did not gain any consensus, but you went ahead anyway. No more edits please until other eds comment. You are being arrogant on this issue. Not cool Irondome (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Not really, the RS are THE thing. The article is pretty good overall, but has gaps which I am partly fixing. Its not controversial this new material, its just that you left it out. SaintAviator lets talk 05:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks here. I requested you to discuss, but you ignored my requests. I believe that is now being resolved as we have a dialogue now. I agree with the issues as raised by elements of the Israeli Air Force who have deep misgivings about aspects of the design. See the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Israeli procurement section for further details. They have successfully requested that their own jamming and ECM kit be fitted, due to worries about stealth capability being lost due to development overruns. In addition, Israel has mooted the concept of a 2 crew stretched version of the F-35 with conformal stealthy fuel tanks to greatly increase range. They obviously visualise it as being a follow on to the F-15E. The airframe could in all probability be modified to that extent, making it much more useful and potent. I have no fanboi POV over the F-35. Again, I would ask you to discuss with other editors. Regards Irondome (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes the issue you raised re other nations concerns validates the new material. If I find something controversial I shall discuss otherwise if its RS and in mainstream there is no issue with being bold. BTW calling someone arrogant is a personal attack. Dont do it again. SaintAviator lets talk 05:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I will call it as I see it whenever. Have respect for the community please. I would ask you to present new material whatever it's provenance, here for discussion. Just as respect for the community. Irondome (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I hear you but Im wary of editors with ownership issues. Id rather use a neutral editor if disputes arise. But lets see how this one pans out. SaintAviator lets talk 07:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not have "ownership" issues, so lets stop trading nonsense and begin to work as collaborators. In my experience "meetings" like this tend to end up as fruitful working relationships, oddly. Probably similarity of temperaments. I have experienced several that worked out well. I just have a thing about using talk extensively. Regards Irondome (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

OK good. I think Im about done for now. But I see you're a good editor, so I will discuss next time. SaintAviator lets talk 05:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

F-35's gun and TheDailyBeast

This edit "In December 2014, USAF program officials admitted that software to allow the aircraft to fire its 25 mm GAU-22/A four-barrel rotary cannon will not be included in initially operational aircraft and will not arrive until Block 3F software, forecast for release in 2019. The USAF's F-35A will only carry 180 rounds for the cannon that fires 3,300 rounds per minute. The lack of an operational gun for air-to-air fighting will probably not hamper the aircraft significantly as the aircraft cannot effectively engage in close in air battles.[195]"

Cites an unnamed Air Force Official that contradicts the official timeline given by Lockheed Martin. Further the article also cites unnamed Air Force pilots and more unnamed Air Force officials when discussing the F-35's combat ability. I am removing the above edit because it contains verifiably false information and anonymous Air Force pilots and officials should not be considered a reliable source.98.111.221.8 (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

They're talking about two different things. Your lockheed link is talking about the date when testing aircraft will first get the software to fire the gun. TheDailyBeast is talking about the date when that software will be accepted for units to use in actual combat, rather than just testing. That's what I've read.TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me. "Contrary to recent media misreporting, F-35 25mm gun system (also known as GAU-22) was established in 2005 as a Block 3F weapon for all F-35 variants and its capability will be delivered in 3F software in 2017 (on LRIP 9 aircraft)." and "The 25mm missionized gun pod carried externally, centerline mounted on the F-35B and F-35C also begins testing this year to deliver the 3F full warfighting capability software in 2017." On one hand we have TheDailyBeast quoting an unnamed Air Force official and on the other we have a press release from a F-35 JPO spokesman. 98.111.221.8 (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You're just restating what you said earlier. When the air force first accepts a new software revision for the F-35, it's release is limited to testing planes, and is not installed in active F-35 squadrons. Lockheed is saying that Block 3F will be accepted by the air force not for use, but for testing purposes in 2017. TheDailyBeast is saying that block 3f will be in testing from 2017 until 2019, and active F-35 units will not have access to the software required to fire their cannons. They are talking about two different dates.TeeTylerToe (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I have yet to see a legitimate source that states the services require additional testing for a block's software further then a simple air worthiness. If you have a source please do post it, otherwise it's just hyperbole.Eskodas (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Pro bias

It is obvious from the discussions here that there is a disconcerting pro-F35 bias at work. Particularly Ahunt does whatever he can to suppress bad news. Ahunt, and people like him, should reflect that this aircraft is going to cost American lives. Obvious nonsense that this thing is going to be 8 times more effective than the warthog is going to lead to Marines dying. There is nothing patriotic about propping up the false claims for this disaster.137.205.183.50 (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

What a load of poppycock. If you read the whole series of articles on the F-35 and especially Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement you will find that I have added more material critical of the design and its procurement than any other editor here. However the critiques I add are carefully sourced to independent third party sources and not not involve WP:SYNTHESIS or wild conspiracy theories. Overall the editors working on this series of articles take a critical view of this aircraft, but none of us working on this series accepts unsupported conclusions. Despite your own opinions, at this point in time no reliable source has said "that this aircraft is going to cost American lives" or that it is "Obvious nonsense that this thing is going to be 8 times more effective than the warthog is going to lead to Marines dying." Pushing your own POV is bias. And what the heck has patriotism got to do with writing an encyclopedia article? If you check the user pages of the editors working on this article you will find that many of us, like me, aren't Americans and have nothing to gain or lose here. Rather than throwing around unfounded claims here you would be better off opening an account and contributing in an unbiased manner. You could start with reading WP:AGF and WP:NPA, for starters. - Ahunt (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

While I agree with user "137.205.183.50" that many of the recent gang of editors of this article work as if on a pro-F-35 PR contract (whether or not they live live in the U. S.), in this particular instance I agree with Ahunt that statements like "... this aircraft is going to cost American lives" and "... is going to lead to Marines dying" need to be specifically sourced before being included in this article. Likewise, if this article anywhere says "this thing is going to be 8 times more effective than the [W]arthog", such a statement is equally in need of proper sourcing. That said, I know I have read somewhere recently that the idea that the F-35 can duplicate the performance of the A-10 in the close-support role is an unwarranted and doubtful assumption; if published remarks to that effect can be found and sourced then they would warrant inclusion in this article on the grounds that they call into question the suitability of the F-35 to meet the U. S. defense role expected of it. Of course, U. S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel himself, in testimony before Congress, called into question the survivability of the A-10 in a modern air-defense threat environment, particularly where MANPADS profligacy exists, so in any F-35-versus-A-10 comparison, doubtful A-10 survivability also requires mention.

Separately, while the F-35 may be a far-from-perfect close-air-support solution, if it can survive in commonly-expected threat environments that the A-10 cannot survive then the F-35 would appear to be the only viable close-air support alternative - for the Air Force anyway - especially in light of budgetary constraints. BLZebubba (talk) 07:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree the aircraft is highly overrated. The F35 is a disaster for air forces who buy them, due to the superiority of Russian aircraft. The F35 is a lemon. [8] SaintAviator lets talk 06:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

SaintAviator, your statement is extremely biased and without supporting data...Eskodas (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Why was the Fire Suppression Removed?

Was the fire suppression system removed to reduce weight and cost? SaintAviator lets talk 06:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Redundant due to OBIGGS as well as cost/weight.Eskodas (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds risky SaintAviator lets talk 06:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not, http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=15817 "t. As one would expect, fire is a threat to Flight Critical Systems. Ullage protection is provided by an On Board Inert Gas Generating System (OBIGGS). Fuel tank inerting proved successful in this test series preventing fuel tank ullage explosions. "Eskodas (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Multiple edits i'd like to put forth

Refreshing this section as my proposal is a big one.

I'd like to revise the 1.4 section as it's just a massive wall of text, if someone wants to create a dedicated page just to every piece criticism that's fine but as it is a lot of the information is out dated or redundant.

1) "In 2006, the F-35 was downgraded from "very low observable" to "low observable", a change former RAAF flight test engineer Peter Goon likened to increasing the radar cross-section from a marble to a beach ball.[152] A Parliamentary Inquiry asked what was the re-categorization of the terminology in the United States such that the rating was changed from "very low observable" to "low observable". The Department of Defence said that the change in categorization by the U.S. was due to a revision in procedures for discussing stealth platforms in a public document. Decision to re-categorize in the public domain has now been reversed; subsequent publicly released material has categorized the JSF as very low observable (VLO).[153]"

Is this part necessary as it resulted in zero change to the F-35?

2) "Lockheed Martin has also said that the F-35 is designed to launch internally carried bombs at supersonic speed and internal missiles at maximum supersonic speed.[158]"

What does this have to do with range?

3) "In September 2008, in reference to the original plan to fit the F-35 with only two air-to-air missiles (internally), Major Richard Koch, chief of USAF Air Combat Command’s advanced air dominance branch is reported to have said that "I wake up in a cold sweat at the thought of the F-35 going in with only two air-dominance weapons."[165] The Norwegians have been briefed on a plan to equip the F-35 with six AIM-120D missiles by 2019.[166] Former RAND author John Stillion has written of the F-35A's air-to-air combat performance that it "can't turn, can't climb, can't run"; Lockheed Martin test pilot Jon Beesley has stated that in an air-to-air configuration the F-35 has almost as much thrust as weight and a flight control system that allows it to be fully maneuverable even at a 50-degree angle of attack.[167][168] Consultant to Lockheed Martin Loren B. Thompson has said that the "electronic edge F-35 enjoys over every other tactical aircraft in the world may prove to be more important in future missions than maneuverability".[169]"

The F-35 always was going to have a choice between 4 missiles or 2 missiles and 2 bombs, John Stillion comment should be relegated to the war gaming section above as he was the employee who conducted it. Everything else should be removed or moved elsewhere. Criticism of only 4 missiles with response that 6 missiles are planned in Block 5 is more accurate.

4) "In November 2011, a Pentagon study team identified the following 13 areas of concern that remained to be addressed in the F-35"

Very old data, if someone wants to create a separate page for old data/history that's fine, otherwise this should be removed in favour of newer data.

5) In December 2011, the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin came to an agreement to assure funding and delivery for a fifth order of early F-35 aircraft of yet undefined type

This is useless information in a section it doesn't belong.

6) A 2013 Pentagon report found these additional problems:

Remove this in favour of the 2014 report.

7) DOTE 2014 criticisms i want to add. ♦ First two mission data sets available November 2015, after USMC IOC ♦ Overall suitability relies heavily on contractor support and unacceptable workarounds ♦ Aircraft availability reached 51% but short of 60% goal ♦ Fuel Tanks don't retain inerting for required 12 hours after landing ♦ High dynamic loads on the rudder at lower altitudes in 20-26 AoA preventing testing ♦ 82 pounds added to F-35B in last 38 months, 337 pounds below limit. ♦ Transonic Roll-Off (TRO) and airframe buffet continueto be a program concern. ♦ 572 defiences remain affecting Block 2B capability, 151 of which are critical ♦ VSim would likely not support planned Block 2B operational testing in 2015 ♦ Maintainability hours still an issue ♦ ALIS requires many manual workarounds

8) "A 2014 Reuters article stated design flaws related to its single-engine configuration could vex the F-35 for decades to come, forcing the Pentagon to suspend flying too often for the majority of its fighter fleet.[200]"

Remove this as article does not go into any details at all or with any data.

8) Add VHF criticism and response.

Eskodas (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Eskodas....You cant just delete peoples posts. It just Not done. SaintAviator lets talk 02:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

All of the points were done so the post was useless. If you want to see the old posts use the History button, otherwise it's better to keep it clean for better communication.Eskodas (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• There still was no valid justification to remove others' posts here per WP:Talk page guidelines. Please don't do that any more. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure buddy, now do you have any input into improving the Article through cleaning up section 1.4? Also the Talk guidelines allow removal/refactoring to keep a page clean but to be reversed on protest which i can do if you feel that the previous comments still hold value of some sort Eskodas (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Eskodas, its quite clear:

you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. SaintAviator lets talk 07:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

So you have absolutely nothing of value to add then?Eskodas (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Other than you break the rules only this: Im leaving this page as Im busy elsewhere and frankly the Aircraft is very average, which is reasonably expressed in the article. SaintAviator lets talk 09:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This has been here for 5 days and no one has contributed to the discussion at all, unless someone makes an argument as to why none of these edits should not happen i will be pushing them.Eskodas (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Original Research in the Cruise speed figure

It appears that someone has undertaken some original research with the cruise speed duration, because the source cited only says that the jet is capable of Mach 1.2 for 150 miles. Depending on altitude or whether or not the source was referring to statute or nautical miles, the figure could be significantly different. Utlizing Hochwarth's Aviation Calculator to calculate the speed of sound, at sea level, the speed of sound is 761 miles per hour or 661 knots. At 36,000 feet, the speed of sound falls to around 660 miles per hour or 574 knots, and this is also the general cruising altitude. The figure appears to have been derived from a simple calculation of the statute miles assumption with a sea level speed calculation, e.g. 150 miles / (761 mph * 1.2) = 0.164257556 hours * 60 minutes = ≈9.8 minutes. Sustaining Mach 1.2 at sea level, owing to the much high air density there, would not be a speed that could be achieved without the use of afterburners. A more accurate figure would use the cruise altitude speed of sound and knots as the figure of measure, since it was published in an United States Air Force publication aimed at service personnel who would make a similar assumption. 150 nm / (574 knots * 1.2) = 0.217770035 * 60 minutes to an hour = ≈13.1 minutes.

At any rate, since the source did not specify the altitude at which the supersonic dash could be accomplished at, it is not a routine calculation, therefore we can't post a duration figure in the article. WP:CALC

Calvinstrikesagain (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is it hard to find information like: How many F-35s did the AF order? The Navy? The Marines?

Could this information be made more prominent? Shouldn't this be almost the top bullet point about the entire program? Am I just not seeing it?TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Main article: Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement - Ahunt (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Where does it break down the number ordered by the different parts of the military? At the top it says ~2,400 total, then further down it says 2,443 at the stated time, but how many -a? How many -b? -c? How many for the air force? How many for the marines? Isn't that something readers would want to know? Why isn't it easily accessible? Why isn't it in the main article? Where is that information at all?TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know that hasn't been determined. Only small numbers have been ordered so far, as the article series details. Each service may have hopes or forecasts, but they are ordering only a few at a time, piecemeal. - Ahunt (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

B class = former FA, should/can be brought back up to standards. See Wikipedia:Featured article review/F-35 Lightning II

Substituted at 20:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)