Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II/Archive 9

We should add a drawbacks section

It seems to be easily gathered (from a very basic skimming of specifications) that the F35 is not very well comparable to aircraft of this role. Only six hardpoints? Relatively short range? Relatively slow?

If we don't point out these things the site will become increasingly U.S.A. propaganda. We should add a new section for well documented, confirmed flaws in the design, and to avoid bias we should maintain NPOV by saying something like "they say this and these claim this other thing."

It's very simple. Green547 (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This could be done, but the main thing would be to avoid WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. - Ahunt (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

There are a total of 6 external and 4 internal stores hardpoints with 1 centerline gun pod hard point, so that point is less accurate than you suggest, Green547. The F-35 offers a combat radius of 459(B)-613(A) nm miles hi-lo-hi with 2000(B) or 4000(A) lbs of bombs compared to 340 nm for an F-16 on a on a hi-lo-hi with 4000 lbs of bombs, or 330 nm for an F/A-18A/B/C/D on a hi-lo-hi mission with an undisclosed amount of ordinance. That is not short range. Its top speed of mach 1.61 with a full internal combat load is higher than what a similarly loaded MiG-29, F-16, or F-18 could achieve. You might want to check out http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-f-35-and-infamous-sustained-g-spec.html and read his full series on that point. Much of the criticism comes from taking the specifications out of context and comparing them to another aircraft in a different part of its envelope. Comparisons must be made within the same envelope altitude, maneuver, and relative loadings. The alternate wars Specific Aircraft Characteristics database also provides a large number of SAC's so you get a feel for what the capabilities are in context. http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/ I would check them out before you start writing out that section, and place the limitations of the aircraft in the context of the strike performance of other aircraft, such as the A-7 or F-117 and the fighter performance of the F-16 or F/A-18. Calvinstrikesagain (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ahunt I think we could start the section without violating WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR.

@Calvinstrikesagain I think that we should make comparisons between the overall performance of the F35 and the overall performance of other aircraft of the same role (multirole, air superiority) of the U.S. and also other nations. We shouldn't compare the overall performance of the F35 with specific performance areas of specifically selected aircraft in order to "hide" its weaknesses. This should avoid bias. Green547 (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)must

@Green547, I am not trying to "hide weaknesses", I am comparing apples to apples. Having worked with several aviators and taking my pilot's instruction to earn my license, I have learned that when comparing aircraft, you compare a specific performance parameter to a specific performance parameter of the same type of two aircraft within the same portion of their envelopes. A 5.1g sustained turn is very good, and a 4.6g sustained turn is still respectable at 15,000 ft, but both would be unacceptable at sea level. That's comparing apples to apples. What it sounds like to me is that you are proposing a comparison of apples to oranges, which is *not* objective and can be quite misleading. Comparing a short range strike loadout with a long range penetration loadout is not useful, because they are different missions, and different capabilities. For example, an A-6E could carry 18 Mk-82 500 lbs bombs on a LO-LO-LO mission to a combat radius of 383 miles, but an A-7B could carry 6 Mk-82 500 lbs bombs to a combat radius of 694 miles. One might infer that the A-6 was the shorter range aircraft, but in actuality, it had a ferry range of 2823 nm compared the A-7B, which had a ferry range of 2770. With like loadings of eighteen 500lbs bombs, the aircraft had nearly identical range: 383 nm vs 389 nm. The HI-LO-HI long range and LO-LO-LO short range strike performance of the A-6 and A-7 is what the USN was trying to replace with A-12 prior to that aircraft's cancellation. The naval JSF requirements were written with this in mind, i.e., to replace the lost capability of the A-6/A-7 fleet while retaining the air to air capability of the F/A-18 A/B/C/D fleet, all while doing this with equal or superior LO capbility relative to the F-117. Despite its many flaws, it appears that the F-35C will meet that requirement. The Marine JSF requirement was meant to replace the AV-8B in a close air support and fleet air defense capability. The F-35B, comparing the SAR report to the AV-8B SAC document appears to provide that quite well. Other than FRS Harrier and SeaHarrier, there aren't any other extant aircraft to compare that to. The primary role of the F-35A is as a strike and SEAD aircraft. It has a secondary role as an air superiority aircraft. In terms of clean performance, yes, the F-35's is lower than a F-16C Block 50 when both are clean at 100% fuel, but the F-35 maintains the same key performance parameters when loaded, and still has the fuel to accomplish a 613 nm strike, something the F-16 could not do without drop tanks or conformal fuel tanks, and even then, at a significant performance deficit. What it sounds like to me is that you are asking for a section that lists all of the criticisms against the airframe, and if that's what you want, then list it as criticism, but if you call it a drawbacks section, then I fear you are taking the point of view that the critics are correct and that is not an NPOV.

Respectfully, Calvinstrikesagain (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The way we avoid WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR in these sorts of comparisons is that we need a WP:RS that makes the comparison and then quote from that. We can't take performance numbers ourselves and compare them for the reasons that User:Calvinstrikesagain explains above. If there are sources that make the comparison then let's have a look and see what they say. - Ahunt (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Calvinstrikesagain I definitely appreciate your expertise in this area. What I had in mind was making a chart listing the basic specifications of the F-35 and the basic specifications of other aircraft of the same role and era (thereby comparing apples with apples) without making any conclusions or assumptions; only presenting facts. I was thinking of using the sources already used for the articles of these other aircraft. Is that possible? Green547 (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

By previous consensus it is not standard practice to make such comparisons in aircraft articles (or I believe in most article) per the comments by User:Ahunt, it can cause huge POV and balance issues. We provide the specification information in each aircraft article so the reader can do original research themselves if they are interested. MilborneOne (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you direct me to the site where such a consensus has been reached? I think it would be reasonable to make an exception, it seems to me that the F35 article does need a comparison chart and I do not see how this would upset the POV. Green547 (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I suspect it has been discussed at WP:AIRCRAFT, but that said comparisons between products is really not encyclopedic and I cant see why the F-35 is an exception to these general rules, you would have to compare it against the 10,000+ other aircraft types that have existed hence the minefield of NPOV and the like. MilborneOne (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

As I noted above we can't make comparisons as that is WP:OR, unless we have refs that make the comparisons themselves and quote from those. - Ahunt (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

This is more or less the basic idea.

F35 Lightning	F22 Raptor	F15 Eagle	Sukhoi Su-30
Combat Radius: 613 nmi (1,135 km) on internal fuel	410 nmi	1,061nmi (interdiction)	--
Hardpoints: 6 external pylons and 2 internal pylons	Missiles: air-to-air 6 long range, 2 short range; 4 air-to-ground missiles; 2 1,000lb JDAM	Hardpoints: 11	Hardpoints 12/8
Max Speed: Mach 1.6	Mach 2.25	High altitude Mach 2.5; Low Mach 1.2	Mach 2.0

Of course, this needs a lot of pimping but that is the basic idea. I don't see how this violates WP:OR since we would not be drawing any conclusions, only presenting sourced facts.

Sincerely, Green547 (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not a fan of F35, but we should compare it to fighters with comparable role and generation. F35 is a Fifth-generation jet fighter with much specific properties (like stealth) that are not part of 4th generation jets: F15 or SU30; making it in part uncomparable (in fact the comparison proposed above would not look unfavourable for the F104 starfighter, a second generation jet, and I think you would agree such a comparison is useless). If we limit ourselves to 5th generation jets: F22 is the air superiority 5th generation fighter, and its unit price is still far above the of F35 (in spite of its gross budget overrunning). Russian and Chinese 5th generation jets are in the development phase and little is available to make the comparison. Arnoutf (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

PS I do think there is much original research and synthesis involved in selecting the planes to compare with and attributes (e.g. why not stealth, maneuverability, radar, etc) to compare on. Arnoutf (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The chart above is just an example; eventually I would like to add other attributes. Since there are not too many aircraft of the same generation and role that we can compare the F35 to, that doesn't seem like a problem to me. Green547 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

But wouldn't it be a bit over the top to make a table comparing it to the only other 5th generation plane the also US built F22? Arnoutf (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

That is a good point. Green547 (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, perhaps it would be a good idea, since the F35 is intended to replace/complement the F22. Green547 (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I would not think to hard about it as you are unlikely to gain a consensus to add it. MilborneOne (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

For what reason? Green547 (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Watch This

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw Good start for refs. SaintAviator lets talk 04:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Except for WP:COPYLINK. - Ahunt (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you guys move the controversy section to a new article already?

A good number of the people who are still pushing this fantasy that the F-35 is a doomed program producing an unworkable plane are these guys: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31962644

Russians paid by their state to misinform. I mean just look at the talk page here, it's one guy after another making "Can we add a "F-35 will explode and kill everyone" section" posts. It's absurd.

The controversy is over, the program is going ahead more or less on schedule, and only one of the three variants was ever considered for cancellation. There's no reason to still have all that garbage killing what used to be a featured article.

The F-35 has problems, to be sure, and the controversy should be addressed. But with a paragraph and a link to the controversy section, not this obsessive compulsive explosion of out of context and outdated information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.61.21 (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree it needs it's own page. Randyengineer (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Canadian secret purchase of F-35

Can we reach a consensus as to whether or not this should be included? Green547 (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement pretty much beats that to death already. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

As I noted, it is already in Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement in much more detail, without all the hype and incorrect information. That is where it belongs as it is not part of the F-35 aircraft type story, it is part of the Canadian procurement story. Incidentally, as far as can be ascertained, this was just an error on the part of the general who briefed it, there is no evidence that any contract was let, any aircraft bought or delivered and no money was allocated. - Ahunt (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

By that argument, the whole section could be removed, since it is covered in Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement. Green547 (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The items there are a broad overview of procurement, showing the nations that have actually ordered aircraft. It is normal practice to do that on Wikipedia, rather than just have a heading and a main template. As I note above, in the case of this incident it just appears to have been a mistake. There is no evidence that any aircraft were ordered or delivered, so it doesn't form part of the overview. The Canadian procurement is very complex, which is why the subject gets its own article. When Canada really does order any aircraft, or decides to not buy the F-35, then it would be appropriate to mention that on this page. - Ahunt (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

OK then so that is fine. Green547 (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Request to change the main image

The main image is not aesthetically attractive and does not show much of the aircraft. It also doesn't have a forward flight angle, which 95% of military aicraft articles on Wiki have.

I propose changing it to 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-XL333-496.jpg Heaney5551 (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick look at the infobox photos of aircraft in Template:US fighters shows that most are side on shots so I doubt that your 95% statement is accurate. File:CF-1 flight test.jpg seems fine and it is a featured image on commons, so aesthetically and technically it's also fine. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the current photo actually shows the aircraft's basic configuration better than the proposed shot. - Ahunt (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Is Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon's head of test and evaluation, notable?

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/04/15/f35-close-air-support-shortfalls/25811203/

Should we mention his bullet points of F-35 limitations? Hcobb (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not a question of his being "notable" but, as a reference, "reliable" and I would say so. What he is quoted as saying in the ref is worth adding to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he is a reliable source about the F-35A, but not everything in those bullet points is relevant to the program as a whole. He is comparing the F-35A Block 2B to the A-10, and only for the CAS mission, which is spent near the ground. Block 2B is a transitory block, as pointed out -all those deficiencies won't remain for all of the F-35A's career. Any fast jet will be inadequate for the CAS mission as compared to the A-10. At one time in the 80s, the USAF wanted to replace the A-10 with the F-16, but we don't have bullet points about the F-16's limitations in that article, implying the F-16 has major design flaws. So someone can write a neutral, consise paragraph incorporating some of the issues mentioned in the bullet points, but to simply drop in bullet points whole, even reworded to avoid plagiarism, isn't a good idea, certainly not without mentioning the context or the planned upgrades which will address some of those issues. - BilCat (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Future introduction dates in the infobox

Is it really fair for an encyclopedia to state that the F-35C was introduced in 2018 and that the RAF is a Primary User? We have all seen how government projects work, both of those things could be cut short and significant parts of this plane have been delayed already. Shouldn't we say something like "projected introduction"? Juno (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Good points! I have added "forecast" to the operational introduction dates. The aircraft is actually in current service in the training and development roles with the four services listed, USAF, USMC, USN and RAF, so that is actually correct. Perhaps to avoid confusion, the dates should be changed to indicate when the first aircraft were taken on strength rather than operational use? - Ahunt (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably so. I like the look of the current layout, thanks for working on that. Juno (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

GAO report about future (haven't read it) TGCP (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed replacement armament lead

In my reading, the armament section is in dire need of rewriting. Maybe a graphic could be added illustrating common weapon loadouts? Here is my proposed replacement text:

The F-35 has the GAU-22A, a four-barrel version of the 25 mm GAU-12 Equalizer cannon. The cannon is mounted internally with 182 rounds for the F-35A and in a semi-stealthy external pod with 220 rounds for the B and C variants. The F-35 also has 10 attachment stations, including two wingtip stations, four under-wing stations, and four internal stations divided between two internal bays. The wingtip stations can carry AIM-9X Sidewinder or AIM-132 ASRAAM short-range air-to-air missiles (AAM) only, and one station in each internal bay is limited to smaller weapons, such as air to air missiles. On the B model, the other internal bay station can carry 1,000 lbs; on the other models it can carry 2,000lbs. Carrying things on the external stations will increase the plane's Radar Cross-Section, making it easier to detect on radar. The four under-wing stations can carry almost every aircraft weapon in the air force inventory, as well as external fuel tanks, which can extend the range of a plane. The under-wing stations can also support electronics pods, such asthe Terma A/S multi-mission pod (MMP) which could be used for different equipment and purposes, such as electronic warfare, aerial reconnaissance, or rear-facing tactical radar. Upgrades are to allow each weapons bay to carry four GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs (SDB) for A and C models, or three in F-35B. Another option is four GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb IIs in each bay. This has been pushed back to block 4 in 2022 for the B variant because of required design changes. Lockheed Martin has suggested that a Block 5 version could carry three weapons per bay instead of two, replacing the heavy bomb with two smaller weapons such as AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles.

The Meteor (missile) air-to-air missile may be adapted for the F-35, a modified Meteor with smaller tailfins for the F-35 was revealed in September 2010; plans call for the carriage of four Meteors internally. The United Kingdom planned to use up to four AIM-132 ASRAAM missiles internally, later plans call for the carriage of two internal and two external ASRAAMs. The external ASRAAMs are planned to be carried on "stealthy" pylons; the missile allows attacks to slightly beyond visual range without employing radar.

Norway and Australia are funding an adaptation of the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) for the F-35. Under the designation Joint Strike Missile (JSM), it is to be the only cruise missile to fit the F-35's internal bays; according to studies two JSMs can be carried internally with an additional four externally. The F-35 is expected to take on the Wild Weasel mission, though there are no planned anti-radiation missiles for internal carriage. The B61 nuclear bomb was initially scheduled for deployment in 2017; as of 2012 it was expected to be in the early 2020s, and in 2014 Congress moved to cut funding for the needed weapons integration work. Norton A. Schwartz agreed with the move and said that "F-35 investment dollars should realign to the long-range strike bomber". NATO partners who are buying the F-35 but cannot afford to make them dual-capable want the USAF to fund the conversions to allow their Lightning IIs to carry thermonuclear weapons. The USAF is trying to convince NATO partners who can afford the conversions to contribute to funding for those that cannot. The F-35 Block 4B will be able to carry two B61 nuclear bombs internally by 2024.

According to reports in 2002, solid-state lasers were being developed as optional weapons for the F-35. The F-35 is also one of the target platforms for the High Speed Strike Weapon, assuming that hypersonic missile is successful.

Close air support (CAS) in contested environments is a primary mission for the Air Force's F-35A. Amid criticism that the aircraft is not well suited for the role compared to a dedicated attack platform, Air Force chief of staff Mark Welsh is putting focus on weapons for the F-35 to employ on CAS sorties including guided rockets, fragmentation rockets that would shatter into individual projectiles before impact, and lighter, smaller ammunition in higher capacity gun pods. Fragmentary rocket warheads would have greater effects than cannon shells fired from a gun because a single rocket would create a "thousand-round burst," delivering more projectiles than a strafing run could. Other weapons could take advantage of the aircraft's helmet-mounted cueing system to aim rather than needing to point the nose at a target.

It should be added that there's an 11th station down the centerline which seems to only be used for the gun pod. Is it even on the -A?TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Criticism, controversy and undue weight

Is WP:UNDUE being given to those in the Development section? I feel it is currently just short of being a tirade with its excessive listing. Might it be time to revise the content? Keeping what is absolutely relevant. Or perhaps a new article, where it can be better presented and more balance with due weight given to all sides etc. What do people think? Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Much of it shouldn't have been added in the first place, but some editors feel the need to basically put any headline into the article as it happens. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

(Especially if it's a negative headline!) - BilCat (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I have tagged the sections to inspire more discussion here and get a feel for the community consensus on the issue. Cheers. Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Overall this is a program that has a record number of problems and I don't think this can be ignored. These sections could be compressed a bit though. - Ahunt (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I can imagine that it has had a record number of media reports of problems, but a record nunber of actual problems? That needs proof, and is probably indicitive of recentism. Many aircraft have had very troubled developments. Such US programs include the F-111, F-14, F-15, V-22, and C-17, and all of those had bouts with cancellation, with the V-22 actually being cancelled once. The HAL Tejas has had a very long and troubled development. Its planned engine won't actually be used on the aircraft, and the engine is in the process of cancellation. - BilCat (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"Record number of problems"? That's not even remotely true. The good ol' B-52 that everyone imagines is so simple and cheap to fly was completely redesigned 3 or 4 times before it stopped being useless, and nobody complained because we were facing nuclear annihilation. Meanwhile the F-35 has been redesigned 0 times. It's only getting an undue amount of media attention because of its international nature, exposing it to (justified) criticism from the populations of countries that aren't completely used to paying $150 million for a single item, and because Russia is waging a multimedia campaign against it. I'll bet you dollars to rubles some of the editors here are on Putin's payroll. To be honest, you entire group of editors should be taken off this project and replaced with impartial editors from somewhere. I'm sure some of you are trying to maintain objectivity, but nobody seems to care that the massive "problems" sections - both of them - are making this article into a joke. And there's serious discussion to add a third problem section? The PAK FA won't be available for export until 2035 and is currently facing cancellation and look at its development page. It doesn't even mention those things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA Which, don't get me wrong, is bad. Problems should be mentioned. But not 8000 words' worth of garbage. Torriende (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

BilCat is most correct. The F-35 has certainly received record media attention, and overwhelmingly negative at that, but there is little indication F-35 has actually received a record number of problems. Certainly not enough to merit the undue weight being given to those sections in the article. Torriende, we are not suggesting adding yet another criticism section. Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I meant here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#We_should_add_a_drawbacks_section Torriende (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Separating content like that makes such a section a magnet for negative coverage and lead to unbalanced coverage. This is discussed at WP:Criticism in more detail. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Fnlayson. I had overlooked that Wikipedia guidelines encourage us not to have criticism sections within articles. Yet another reason to tackle the issue in addition to WP:UNDUE. Perhaps then, integrating the most relevant pieces from these controversy sections into the rest of the articles body (where appropriate) is the best course of action. Cheers.Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Good luck. You're dealing with people who are almost certainly sockpuppets paid to keep the controversy sections predominant.Torriende (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Torriende, I suspect we will be able to identify anybody trying to assert their own bias or POV in the matter. Especially if what they are pushing is against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cheers. Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

This shows an amazing 4min video (awesome!)

Headline-1: Is F-35 Jet Finally Operational? Marines Put It to Test

• http://www.wsj.com/video/is-f-35-jet-finally-operational-marines-put-it-to-test/8C8E7C2C-10B3-4810-964A-7BDA5268CC75.html?mod=trending_now_video_2

QUOTE: "Ten could be ready to fly in July 2015" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Program appears to have been cancelled (satire)

According to duffelblog http://www.duffelblog.com/2015/06/air-force-marines-cancel-f-35-joint-strike-fighter/ the program has been cancelled. 203.12.85.25 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't hold you breath: That's a parody site, meaning it's fake. - BilCat (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Program cost increases and delays

I don't know whether this section shows undue weight, because I couldn't even read it. I suggest someone at least break it up and organize it. It's got stuff mixed in about spying and theft of data, which doesn't even belong. Most of it is in chronological order. This isn't the newspaper. Surely there is some other way to organize this section to make it readable. The way it is now, it's not even possible to have a discussion about the undue weight question. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight in 'Concerns over performance and safety'

There has to be a way to resolve this, it's getting ridiculous. It's not meant to act as a diary of every news outlets opinion on the happenings of a flight test and to be frank, it's far too large. I'm looking for recommendations on what to do next, I would support cutting it down to the bare bones. GRA (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I definitely think the flight test points (ie an F-35 successfully carried X munitions...) need to be chopped. This is normal testing and not notable. - Ahunt (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

F-22 as alternative dogfighter

It's illogical to call for F-22 as the dogfighter platform, as the F-22 gets pwned even more in a dogfight and lacks the F-35's plans to add HOBS. http://theaviationist.com/2014/09/30/these-may-be-the-only-f-22s-achilles-heels-in-a-dogfight-against-4th-gen-fighter-jets/ Hcobb (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Combat readiness

DoD declares the F-35 for the U.S. Marine Corps now ready, today. Dates for the other versions are also forecast.

Headline-1: US Marines Say F-35 is Ready for War

• http://www.defenseone.com/management/2015/07/us-marines-say-f-35-ready-war/118778/

QUOTE: "The Pentagon has declared the U.S. Marine Corps version of the F-35 joint strike fighter ready for war, seven years later than planned in 2001, when the U.S. launched its ambitious project to build a common warplane for the military and its closest allies. ... The Air Force is expected to declare its version of the F-35 ready for war next year; the Navy, in 2018 or 2019" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

It is already in the article. - Ahunt (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

RT report

I admit we have to look at journalistic bias BUT they do reference US reports on the new aircraft. I think the fact that the much more powerful Rolls Royce engine & lift-fan being cancelled shows the US in a bad light when, self-funded research was carried out to produce a MUCH more powerful system by the makers of the original VTOL aircraft, the Harrier. The Harrier used it's vectored nozzles to sit above a heat-source (like a corn field) at a low altitude so that regular jets flew past. The RAF saying on the Harrier is 'you're safe in the 'weedosphere' i.e. hovering 30 feet above a BIG heat source, turning on the spot & firing a heat-seeking missile at the enemy as they fly past (quote from RAF pilot I met).

http://www.rt.com/usa/312446-f-35-inferior-foreign/

I believe that Australia and other countries are looking at replacing the engines with Rolls Royce units https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric/Rolls-Royce_F136 which offer triple the thrust. The reason for the cancellation was that the F35 cannot achieve the G factors possible with this engine i.e. it was too powerful for the aircraft but Australia, at least, are asking for development to be restarted.

If a 30 YO US Jet can outfly the replacement, don't replace... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.56.145 (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The link you provide which could be considered biased makes no mention of engines at all. Also note the F136 doesnt exist as a product and would cost a lot of money to certify as a new engine never mind re-design and re-certify the aircraft to use it, I doubt Australia would spend that sort of money for a non-standard aircraft. Have you any reliable references on the subject? MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• The F136 would have produced comparable or better thrust to the F135 engine, bit nothing like 3 times. Please take the crazy claims somewhere else. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Borisoglebsk 2

After testing of the new Russian "anti-high-tech" Borisoglebsk 2 in Ukraine, this new Russian weapon system appears to jam all communication as well as GPS-system. Hence a question about all other "high-tech" weapon rises. This has suddenly frightened American military as well as NATO. According to (a right wing) Swedish morning newspaper, with good international reputation. I can't see what was undue in my contibution. Can America just take it for granted that F-35 can't be stopped by Borisoglebsk 2 ? It doesn't seem so to me. OK it's early days still, but fact is neither the American Airforce or NATO know if the Borisoglebsk 2 system will make the F-35 inoperable. But EMP pulses from huge nuclear detornations and from the sun is no news. Neither is jamming. I think all possible counter weapons belongs to the weapon article. (Also if/when an anti-Borisoglebsk 2 weapon is invented.) Generally ,if the best assult weapon can be made inoperable by a even better defence system, such matters goes together. And it's not I who ask whether the F-35 stands up towards the Borisoglebsk 2, according to the source, ist it NATO and America who wonders. (Presumably Russia as well) Boeing720 (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

There is not much independent evidence that Borisoglebsk 2 exists or works as claimed yet. It might bear a short mention in the article, but certainly not in the lead para, that would be WP:UNDUE unless it was proven to defeat the F-35 in combat. - Ahunt (talk) 11:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It's speculative rumor at best, and propaganda at worst. No independent confirmation of the content - a reprint in a Swedish newspaper doe prove the story is true. And we can't claim the US and NATO are worried about the "weapon" re: the F-35 when they haven't said any such thing. And I'd delete the Borisoglebsk 2 article too. We don't work for Putin. - BilCat (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

OK - It was wrong of me to put it in the lead, as this article has reached the phase when the lead only ought to cover the detailed following content. About evidence, a predecessor made a top modern destroyer helpless (according to the Russians, of cource... but still, I think that article is spiced in details but what would Russia obtain by inventing such lies ? And why hasn't US Navy or NATO even denied that event. Are there any NATO warship in the northern Black Sea ? If not, the credibility of the Russian statement/propaganda rises) and Borisoglebsk 2 has closed down all GPS-system and mobile telephony in parts of Ukraine, according to the Ukranians. Svenska Dagbladet is the most reliable newspaper in Sweden and its political colour is blue, which in Sweden equals right wing, pro-US, anti-Social Democracy etc. Also f.i. the American network CBS appears to believe it exited already in June http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/06/17/report-russian-military-developing-anti-drone-microwave-gun/. (Although article is written a bit "young girlish" in my mind). Let us hope any war never begins between the military super-powers, which is the most plausible event that may happen, in order to get the absolute truth about Borisoglebsk 2 vs the F-35. Boeing720 (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"what would Russia obtain by inventing such lies ?" Propaganda value, mostly. The US and NATO probably hasn't denied it because they wouldn't respond to propaganda as it gives it credibility. Do countries make up weapons that don't exist? See Heinkel He 113 and for a more recent one Qaher-313 - Ahunt (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It still doesn't have anything substantive to do with the F-35 other than speculation. And why the F-35? If the weapon works on a destroyer, it should work on any modern fighter, not just the F-35. - BilCat (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The "article" reads like gibberish to me. Reading it, I have no idea what it is attempting to describe basically. I think it should be deleted in its present form. It appears to be fantasy, or a wish-dream. Irondome (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

BilCat. What on Earth are You on about ? "Working for Putin ?" I find that on the border to be a personal comment. Then You could read my comment on the talk-page of the Borisoglebsk 2 article. The matter has been on Scandinavian media as Sweden and Denmark did some kind of legal military testflight over Russian territory some days ago, and regarding this, the Borisoglebsk 2 weapon system has been mentioned more several times. On TV-news, tele-text etc and indeed in Svenska Dagbladet. I was very surprised that we lacked an article on the matter. I'm NOT interested i weapon system, however in civil aviation and since this was about programming (which is my profession), I read about it. And think I have been as NPOV as has been possible. I can't help wondering why NATO and USA are silent. But Ukraine has made complaints. There is some kind of peace treaty, so Ukraine regarded the jamming to be against the treaty that I'm not an expert on. Would I work for Obama if I began an article about a new American drone ? Of cource cannot everything that comes from Russian sources be taken as "the whole truth and nothing but the truth", but I have pointed that out.

And this article, is suitable for mentioning. The pure fact that Russia claims to have such a weapon oght to be compared to something alleged it can manage, especially since a neutral source clearly states that the US and NATO fear whether the F-35 will be affected or not. That is in my mind sufficient, for some kind of mentioning. Fear itself has started several unnecessary wars. One of them not that long time ago... with the result that the Islamic State beheades every non sunni-muslim in a large part of Irak (and Syria). I personally fear IS far more NOW than I feared Saddam before, how about You ? I would suggest that America and Russia stopped this situation. And Obama and Putin could together whipe out those mad maniacs. And for Ukraine - I say, look at Greece (with 11 million people) ! How should EU possible could help a five time as populated country ? Boeing720 (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

What's so impossible with an Iranian aircraft ? Stealth isn't just an American invention, Sweden built Stealth ships before the US stealth planes come. As an example of what You write, I don't get it. But neither do I say it's naturally true. I presume You live in USA, and for some reason think patriotically somehow. But Your President appear worried. Can't You watch BBC-news instead of Fox News , by the way !? Boeing720 (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Um, no, if you check my user page you will see I am a Canadian. The point of my examples were that they are both two fake weapons that do not exist but were promoted for propaganda purposes. They illustrate the concept that this Russian EW system may be in the same category, since there is no independent verification that it even exists. - Ahunt (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

How does a Russian news source know that the US president is worried about anything he hasn't spoken about in public? Unless of course Putin is reading his email, and told them, but then they wouldn't neutral, would they? - BilCat (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is an interview with the American commander in Europe, general Frederick Hodges. I'm too tired to continue now. For the time being this link is also included in the article. Perhaps it doesn't quite satisfy extreme American patriots, I don't know. And I don't complaint on being "extremely patriotic" regardless of where people who read this lives. Personally am I more patriotic about my home town and my home province than towards my country. Real football may be excluded, but not elsewise. Boeing720 (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but patriotism has nothing to do with anything here, and frankly it's quite insulting that you think it's even an issue with editors in good standing. I'd object to this sort of unconfirmed rumor no matter what nation it was about, and I have done so in the past on many other articles, as have the other editors opposing this addition. Btw, what interview? - BilCat (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

That's good. Oh dear! I'm sorry about the interview-link. I'm almost still asleep, I woke up due to the telephone. I frankly thought I put it here as well. But please see the (temporary) link under a new headline in the Borisoglebsk 2 article. I would say the source is optimal, but came out on 4.August. Defense News covers international matters, but is American and affiliates to CBS and WUSA (TV). I'm going back to sleep, all the best Boeing720 (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but much of what you are saying here seems incoherent and certainly lacking reliable sources. I think it's time we put this to bed. If you ever manage to come up with some actual verifiable and credible sources then by all means raise the issue again but until then this is just becoming disruptive and it needs to stop. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

READ THIS THEN http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/warfare/2015/08/02/us-army-ukraine-russia-electronic-warfare/30913397/

Defense News is an Americal weekly paper which covers the world. American military advicers came to Ukraine to teach Ukranians about EW technology, but it's become the Ukranians who teaches the american experts. According to the American commander in Europe. The interview was published on 4.August , presumably the interview was made 5-10 days earlier (what do I know, but before August 4). In any case is it a weapon system which unlike some other Russian EW system , isn't a part of the Ukrainian Army as it is new. Boeing720 (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

From the American source above "Ukrainian forces have grappled with formidable Russian electronic warfare capabilities that analysts say would prove withering even to the US ground forces." Boeing720 (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but that article doesn't mention the F-35. How is this relevant to this article here we are discussing? - Ahunt (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you mention this in Borisoglebsk 2? Green547 (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 25 external links on Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121028104156/http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/10/26/3476421/pentagon-takes-a-harder-line-with.html to http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/10/26/3476421/pentagon-takes-a-harder-line-with.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150508161516/http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2011/11/18/01.xml to http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2011/11/18/01.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131017215526/http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/02/22/with-45-states-plugged-into-f-35-program-stealth-fighter-is-too-big-to-kill/ to http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/02/22/with-45-states-plugged-into-f-35-program-stealth-fighter-is-too-big-to-kill/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150508160800/http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/SECOND052909.xml to http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/SECOND052909.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150717145439/http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065928225 to http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065928225
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150509010324/http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2010/05/17/10.xml&headline=New%20Stealth%20Concept%20Could%20Affect%20JSF%20Cost to http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2010/05/17/10.xml&headline=New%20Stealth%20Concept%20Could%20Affect%20JSF%20Cost
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120405042733/http://www.thedestinlog.com/news/legal-28112-nwfdn-fees-okaloosa.html to http://www.thedestinlog.com/news/legal-28112-nwfdn-fees-okaloosa.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150602215954/http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/F35-031209.xml to http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/F35-031209.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120622162234/http://www.vectorsite.net:80/avf35.html to http://www.vectorsite.net/avf35.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110817153107/http://www3.rockwellcollins.com:80/news/page8813.html to http://www.rockwellcollins.com/news/page8813.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150717174550/http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/f35aesaradar/ to http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/f35aesaradar/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150225095935/http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/JointStrikeFighterElectroOpticalTar/ to http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/JointStrikeFighterElectroOpticalTar/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150509034009/http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/10044top.xml to http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/10044top.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150508212602/http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/F35-030509.xml to http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/F35-030509.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141205002639/http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2010/06/07/AW_06_07_2010_p26-231580.xml&headline=Flight%20Tests%20Of%20Next%20F-35%20Block%20Underway to http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2010/06/07/AW_06_07_2010_p26-231580.xml&headline=Flight%20Tests%20Of%20Next%20F-35%20Block%20Underway
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101122044240/http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/11/21/2649040/pentagon-officials-to-meet-to.html to http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/11/21/2649040/pentagon-officials-to-meet-to.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121030071648/http://www.pogo.org/resources/national-security/dod-memo-concerns-regarding-jsf-operational-utility-evaluation-training-flights.html to http://www.pogo.org/resources/national-security/dod-memo-concerns-regarding-jsf-operational-utility-evaluation-training-flights.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150508212644/http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2012/02/27/awx_02_27_2012_p0-429863.xml&headline=USMC%20Near%20Start%20Of%20F-35%20Training%20Flights to http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2012/02/27/awx_02_27_2012_p0-429863.xml&headline=USMC%20Near%20Start%20Of%20F-35%20Training%20Flights
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141218222032/http://www.lockheedmartin.com/aeronautics/afa/beesley-interview.html to http://www.lockheedmartin.com/aeronautics/afa/beesley-interview.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131216190402/http://www.nao.org.uk/idoc.ashx?docId=c02da1c8-320b-4062-881d-2c24482459b5&version=-1 to http://www.nao.org.uk/idoc.ashx?docId=c02da1c8-320b-4062-881d-2c24482459b5&version=-1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141017060039/http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=4712 to http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=4712
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141218212655/http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=4736 to http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=4736
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150701011556/http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2010/08/23/AW_08_23_2010_p32-249396.xml to http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2010/08/23/AW_08_23_2010_p32-249396.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141127134810/http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/awst/2011/07/04/AW_07_04_2011_p22-342412.xml&headline=Israel,%20U.S.%20Strike%20F-35%20Technology%20Deal&prev=10 to http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/awst/2011/07/04/AW_07_04_2011_p22-342412.xml&headline=Israel,%20U.S.%20Strike%20F-35%20Technology%20Deal&prev=10
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130524200620/http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/F-35-Fast-Facts-March-13-2012.pdf to http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/F-35-Fast-Facts-March-13-2012.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

not date driven

http://warisboring.com/articles/we-have-proof-the-u-s-air-force-watered-down-the-f-35-to-avoid-embarrassment/ Hostage’s new plan, which he signed off on in February 2012, was “not date driven,” ... But with Congress breathing down the military’s neck, Hostage backtracked from his open-ended timeline.

Worth a mention under schedule slips? Hcobb (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The "fighter" that can't fight

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875 “The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage,” the unnamed pilot wrote in a scathing five-page brief that War Is Boring has obtained. The brief is unclassified but is labeled “for official use only.”

Good enough sourcing? Hcobb (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

We have confirmation. Adding it in. http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/controversy-flares-over-f-35-air-combat-report-0 Hcobb (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

There's been quite a bit of controversey in aviation circles about this with most media misunderstanding the purpose and restrictions in place during the test, many articles now echo this one in rebutting it. https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-the-f-35-was-not-beaten-by-an-f-16/

"The accusations of the F-35 being inferior may seem shocking at first but it should be noted that the specific F-35 involved was ‘AF-2′, this airframe is designed for flight testing, it’s designed to fly in certain restricted flight envelopes. It does not feature the majority of systems present in frontline aircraft. The aircraft, due to it being a test aircraft, had also not had the software installed that is required to use the sensors and mission systems that would be used in combat."

I've added a statement for balance. GRA (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, we need to question the whole 'F16 engagement' notability as a top British RAF pilot refutes much of the critique raised. source Twobells^t@lk 14:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Most I know in the forces do, it's been blown out of all proportion and has become too weighty on the article. GRA (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Is the AvLeak editorial notable? http://aviationweek.com/blog/behind-f-35-air-combat-report Hcobb (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sweetman is certainly a reliable source! - Ahunt (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

From what I have read the airframe involved was only allowed to operate under 6G and with a limitation on throttle. I will see if I can get reliable sources about the flight envelope and report back. For the record i don't like how an aircraft in development is having fragmented data evaluated by third parties in the hope of sensationalizing the F35 project even further. In a number of years I hope this 'analysis' can be removed the the F35 page and be moved onto an "F35 Program Controversies" page that could be referenced from the development section. 195.254.180.28 (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read it, but this source says this report correlates with the test pilot. I didn't find keywords in article or talk archives. TGCP (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

F-35 called not equal to our current fighters, by the F-35 program chief.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-officials-f-35-will-outmatch-any-aircraft-in-dev-417067/

Hcobb (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That is a bit of a stretch from that ref, it is really a cheerleading article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

Sabre rattling, leading into 2017 (or sooner)

Headline-1: Norway highlights F-35 commitment as Russia boosts military activity

• http://finance.yahoo.com/news/norway-highlights-f-35-commitment-russia-boosts-military-005525395--finance.html

QUOTE: "FORT WORTH, Texas (Reuters) - Top Norwegian officials on Monday underscored their commitment to buying up to 52 Lockheed Martin Corp <LMT.N> F-35 fighter jets in coming years, saying the stealthy jet's capabilities provided an important counterweight to Russia's military buildup and increased military flights in the region." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

This article seriously under-sells the program's problems.

Of all of the (civilian-facing) news coverage on the F-35, a solid majority has been about it being very late, very over-budget, and/or being very disappointing as technology (at least to date). This is the verifiable stuff. Thus, I added a paragraph about criticisms in the opening section. It could be better, and citations need cleaning up. Still, it's a VAST improvement over that paragraph not being there.

This whole article still needs a lot of editing for clarity and organization. A lot of that, though not all of it, is in how the article discusses criticism. Deejaytalk (talk) 04:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Inflation over 3 years

Quoting the article:

...against a program cost of $391.1 billion ($320 billion in 2012 dollars)...

There is a math problem here. There hasn't been 22% inflation in 3 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.249.209 (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  The production is out to 2035, it includes future inflation of procurement as well.Randyengineer (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Production goals drop 24% in four months

June 2015: "see the programme on its way to achieving its full-rate production goal of 17 aircraft a month by the mid-2020s" http://www.janes.com/article/52276/paris-air-show-2015-lockheed-martin-prepares-for-f-35-ramp-up-to-drive-down-costs

Oct 2015: "Lockheed Martin’s full-rate production goal of 13 aircraft a month by the mid-2020s" https://www.alcoa.com/global/en/news/news_detail.asp?pageID=20151007000300en&newsYear=2015

Hcobb (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Why the software matters

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II&oldid=686007431&diff=prev

As a software defined aircraft the F-35 is critically dependent on the software that runs it, which is exclusive to USA. This is a metaphorical kill switch, even if there is no actual self-destruct function hidden in the code. Hcobb (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Death spiral begins

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/10/21/mccain-f35-reduce-total-buy/74350928/

Is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee notable? Hcobb (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

UK procurement

Can editors please avoid adding tabloid speculation to the article? If there is a change, it will be announced by the government and reported by themselves or the BBC. 138 aircraft would cost about a fifth of the entire defence budget. The UK has certainly have not "ordered" that many so far. Rob984 (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

That's seems more like the total the UK plans to order over several years. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the SDSR states a commitment to 138 F-35 over the longer-term.Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

So add with a citation... Rob984 (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Where does 139 come from? The SDSR document clearly says it will stick to plans to order 138 F-35B. Note that that figure also includes the 4 test and evaluation aircraft already delivered.Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

That's the 135 signed for and the 4 already being evaluated. Also, what's with the confusion here and getting hung up on who said what? ? The UK signed the financial approval (which is a lot more than 'planned' and released the cash to the MOD for purchase) for a further 138 B's on Saturday November the 20th 2015. It is this agreement that ensures the RAF and RN get at least 24 by 2020, regards. Twobells (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• The SDSR lists 138 F-35 on page 31 as the total planned. Suggesting otherwise looks to be OR. (You're probably right. Flight Global, and Aviation Week are listing 138 in articles today however.) -Fnlayson (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you just provide a citation? Currently, the order count is 14. This will increase obviously, since that figure would have only allowed 8 aircraft to be operational. But I doubt the government has set aside over 10 billion pounds for 138 aircraft, when only enough will be delivered for 24 to be operational by 2023. According to the BBC, only 48 F-35B's will have been ordered by 2023.[1] So for the B variant specifically, "48+ planned" could be stated, since the other 90 could be a different variant (for example F-35As to replace Typhoons in 2040). But if you would rather not mention that for some reason then whatever, I can't be bothered. Rob984 (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I've added "48 total planned by 2023" for the B variant, with citation. Rob984 (talk) 11:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"Undue" tag on Program cost increases and delays

This section is tagged as "undue weight". Having read it and considering the problems that this program has had to date, I don't think the text is "undue". - Ahunt (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a small, yet real consensus in the most recent archive discussion here that the section inappropriately lends undue weight to criticism on the programme. Many, if not all fighter programs post WW2 have experienced delays and issues, especially as fighters get more complex. The only difference, the F-35 being the first such program in the internet/media age - where any tom, dick or harry with an opinion gets heard if he shouts loud enough. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

While that is quite true, this program has still had an extraordinary collection of problems to be criticized. - Ahunt (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

While not a policy or guideline, this is worth a read; WP:CSECTION. When taken in conjunction with Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight, I find it hard to justify the section in this article. To my mind, a great deal of that section can be outright cut, allowing us to put valid and relevant criticism where its due. For example in the design section, mention how notable commentators have criticised the Design, then how Lockheed may or may not have addressed these concerns. Likewise in the Performance section, we can mention real and notable concerns over shortcomings, and in the Procurement section how cost overruns and delays have impacted delivery schedules and possible customers. This would be more in-line with what I am seeing in other articles. Cheers. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Request change of main image

Current image

First proposal

Second proposal

Third proposal

I propose changing the main aircraft image with the same image used on the German article on this aircraft.

[2]

Now that the aircraft is in service, it could use a new image as the current image is nine years old; the proposed image is two years old and brighter, more photogenic and does not have the stripes on the tail. Blue387 (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't have a problem with the change but it would be nice if the original image is kept in the article somewhere. MilborneOne (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The proposed image looks fine to me. - Ahunt (talk) 11:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Although I have slight preference for this one: 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-XL333-505.jpg. Rob984 (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, looks like we have a consensus to change.  Done - Ahunt (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I Don't agree.--Sheriff edits (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the previous image to the new one. I'm fine with a new image, but the ones above aren't an improvement. Quite frankly, they look ugly. - BilCat (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I did a quick search on Commons, and added a newer image of a Netherlands test aircraft from 2013. While not quite as colorful as the lightning bolts on the original image (which I like, btw), the aircraft contrasts well with the background, and shows a good angle of the aircraft, unlike the first 2 proposed. - BilCat (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. the proposed image looks quite ugly. the original is exquisite.--Sheriff edits (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, is quite exquisite. I still prefer it, and honestly, old or not, there's not any discernable external differences between it and the aircraft in the newer photos, model differences aside (A vs. C). - BilCat (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

And it also has the partners nations flags on the side and the F-35 mark on the tail which the other photos do not have, and it is very important to have the main image including the partners nations flags as a way of representing them better.--Sheriff edits (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, I don't see the flags or name as being relevant to image choice, as it's not often used expect on test aircraft or special paint jobs, among most aircraft types, civil or military. It's certainly not a deal-maker or -breaker, but nice that it's there. - BilCat (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The first proposal image seems to be overexposed to me, compare with this one taken the same day of s/n 08-0746. The first photo is of a different aircraft, s/n 08-0747, but is it really that light colored or is it just overexposed. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The aircraft is in service now, so we should have an image of it in service, not a prototype or one in testing and promotional colours. - Ahunt (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I like how the current image shows various countries' flags. The tail is eye-catching and interesting too. I think an advantage of the first proposal is the way the aircraft fills the photo so well. I wouldn't have a problem if we switched to it. --Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't use one that is overexposed instead of the current image, which is a featured image on commons. We should at least pick one that shows the correct color of the aircraft if it is swapped. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's a different take. Probably not as desirable being on-ground, but the aircraft itself looks very nice. (Pardon the link... I'm new and not yet versed in what is allowed to be uploaded.) http://www.luke.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/2015/11/151011-F-BW200-023.jpg LVB (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• 
  Overexposed first proposal image
• 
  Different aircraft, but same camera, same day but the correct exposure. The two aircraft have the same paint scheme.

Marines need two months to get F-35B landing at new bases

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=695526832&oldid=695523875

Really not all that notable? Hcobb (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

What I said was, "Not relevant as written", which it isn't. There's no context other than apparent F-35-bashing. - BilCat (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a change from the previous information just above that, giving exact timelines. Hcobb (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Given the information in the sentence above it, I tend to think this is actually relevant as it shows the difficulties in deploying the aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Why Don't The Cost Figures Include ACTUAL Cost Of Each Unit AS DELIVERED?

Some of the "facts" in this article are not facts at all. Why are the costs in the right bar listed "not including engine"? Why are other "facts" in the article so misleading on costs? Since when you do remove costs of parts that are REQUIRED to be part of the airplane upon delivery for the plane to even be operational? Fixing this now! 68.13.132.27 (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Probably because we dont have a reliable source that gives the actual cost of each unit. MilborneOne (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Is ROW a reliable source?

Robert O. Work: http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2016/02/coming-dogfight-between-f-35-and-new-stealth-bomber/125755/ [J]ust because it can’t out-turn an F-16, or just because it can’t go as fast, we are absolutely confident that [the] F-35 will be a war-winner,” Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work said in November Hcobb (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure he is. More to the point this issue of the F-35 being threatened by the bomber and tanker projects is worth a mention as well. - Ahunt (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Deep Penetration Weapon Storm Shadow Dropped

The bad news continues with the British Storm Shadow deep penetration weapon not being integrated into the F35, leaving the platform with no long range stand-off missile beyond SPEAR Cap 3 and future Cap 5 developments. Twobells (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151027215746/http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123291745l to http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123291745l
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130630202726/http://www.i4u.com:80/2013/05/lockheed-martin-f-35-lightning-ii/turkey-f-35-12-project-billion-earn to http://www.i4u.com/2013/05/lockheed-martin-f-35-lightning-ii/turkey-f-35-12-project-billion-earn

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Both new links are "404" and no other versions seem to exist to fix this, reverted. - Ahunt (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151027215746/http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123291745l to http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123291745l
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130630202726/http://www.i4u.com:80/2013/05/lockheed-martin-f-35-lightning-ii/turkey-f-35-12-project-billion-earn to http://www.i4u.com/2013/05/lockheed-martin-f-35-lightning-ii/turkey-f-35-12-project-billion-earn

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverted, both are 404. - Ahunt (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130630202726/http://www.i4u.com:80/2013/05/lockheed-martin-f-35-lightning-ii/turkey-f-35-12-project-billion-earn to http://www.i4u.com/2013/05/lockheed-martin-f-35-lightning-ii/turkey-f-35-12-project-billion-earn

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Serious Concern Over Gen 3 Helmet & Neck Strength

I had meant to report this for potential addition back in October, essentially, any pilot weighing less than 10 stone may not have the neck strength to survive a mid-air ejection. Do we add this? Twobells (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks significant to me. It could mostly impact women pilots, given the weight limit. - Ahunt (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

That is a CoG related issue with pilot weight and and helmet weight. The newest helmet version is to be lighter to help with this. This was covered a lot in the aerospace media during the latter half of 2015. I thought it was already in the wiki article, but it does not seem to be. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Here are some articles from Defense News and Flight on this: [3], [4], [5] -Fnlayson (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Ref: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/03/14/light-f-35-helmet-tests-begin-dod-aims-fix-escape-system-year/81646430/ Hcobb (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Gen 3 Helmet Delivers

Seems that the non-BAE helmet's issues have finally been resolved I will update the article when I have time, regards. Twobells (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting segment by Forces TV on the helmet that nearly became the F35 helmet solution.Twobells (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

One in Six availability rate

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=717685602&oldid=717684321

Lamestream press has already picked this one up. Here's another ref.

• http://fortune.com/2016/04/28/f-35-fails-testing-air-force/
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3566388/Five-six-F-35-fighter-jets-unable-immature-systems-software-Air-Force-plans-declare-aircraft-combat-ready-year.html
• http://www.inquisitr.com/3046847/five-of-six-f-35-fighter-jets-fail-to-takeoff-during-testing-air-force-still-plans-to-declare-them-combat-ready/

Hcobb (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

If you would like to be taken seriously, communicate seriously and don't start conversations with "lamestream media." You should also respond to the contents of the edit summary that you obviously read, as you linked to it. None of that comment had to do with a lack of sourcing. The issue is that this article (in large part due to your edits) has become a daily play-by-play of minor news events, announcements, and commentary from random individuals. That a software glitch was experienced on one day in April of 2016 is NOT notable, especially for such a software driven aircraft that is still in development. Now, if this becomes a long term trend and the aircraft almost always experiences software glitches grounding it, and that trend is reported in reliable sources, we have something to add to the article. Random tid-bits about single day events that have no long term impact as to the service of the aircraft are not notable. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Section On Operators Overblown

I do not think the section necessitates such an in-depth break-down on procurement. The in-depth and frankly overblown editing looks wrong when compared with the descriptive, neat and short entries. Also, I am sad that I had to raise the issue, as I feel all the editors involved are conscientious, dedicated and well-mannered. However, in this particular case, may I ask all involved editors to re-check the section and consider paring down the verbiage. I suggest we re-edit each operators section to read '### planned' with associated cites, regards to you all.Twobells (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Real, firm orders are important too especially since some partner nations have not yet placed firm orders. I suggest just list number ordered and planned total (to be ordered).-Fnlayson (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with listing the number in use, the number on order, and the total number planned. I agree additions such as "...with 30 more to be ordered by 2020" is overblown. A while ago I changed them all to state "additional planned" for consistency, but I have no problem with changing them all to total planned instead. In the case of the UK, the 138 figure is not specifically for B variants, its for "138 F35 Lightning aircraft over the life of the programme". For B variants, all we know is that by 2023, 48 will have been ordered, 24 of which will be "available on the UK's two new aircraft carriers". Rob984 (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

and bilcat why are we still reverting properly referenced unit listings; I thought it had been decided that in line with many other aircrasft articles that listing parent units and bases is perfectly acceptable and if fact appropriate.Bob80q (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Where was that decided? And by whom? You and your IP socks? You know I'm reverting your list style edits primarily, especially in articles where an existing list style is already established. As to the wings and bases, the article is far, far, far too long already. I can't even edit the whole article from a tablet, as it causes the browser to crash. - BilCat (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

well you tell me, I don't know who reverted it but you seem to be the only one who has been doing so. And what "existing list style" are you referring to, kindly show a reference that dictates this. And "the article is too long" is NOT a reasonable excuse to edit appropriate information. You are using way too much latitude with your editing and I question your ability to continue.22:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.59.106.156 (talk)

UK planning a total of 4 front line squadrons

http://aviationweek.com/defense/uk-planning-four-front-line-f-35-squadrons

Cantab1985 (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Page won't edit properly

For some reason, on this article only (so far), it's almost impossible to edit the page. When I click "edit", it sits and thinks and thinks, then finally tells me the "A script has stopped working". It'll go half way into edit mode, but the text is still solid like when it's an article. Try to reload it, and the same thing happens, or the blue bar gets halfway across and stops. When you finally get it to give you an edit page with a cursor, as you type, the letters will suddenly stop typing, and delay for 10 seconds before catching up. When I finally managed to get the two sentences I wanted to add typed, I click on "Cite"; the button goes grey, like it had been clicked, and it sits and thinks for thirty seconds. I click it again, and suddenly a random citation number "635" pops up next to my text: I haven't even entered an address or title yet, so I have no idea what citation it's trying to give to my text! I delete this, and decide to just enter the address in the text, maybe someone can fix it later. I try to save it, and after thinking about it for a while, it tells me there was an error and it can't save. Try again, same thing happens. So, go back to previous page, forward to "F-35" again, click "Edit", same damn $%#! happens, only this time it finally lets me save. What is it with this particular page that makes it act like this? I've edited other pages since, and they work fine, but this one's still doing this. Is this an extra subtle way of discouraging people from editing or vandalizing the page, or what? It's very frustrating.AnnaGoFast (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

In testing the page it edits fine using Firefox 46.0.1 on Linux. I suspect the problem may be your browser. Which browser and version are you using? - Ahunt (talk)

It's probably because the page is way too big (over 317,000 bytes now), and your browser can't handle the page size. Can you edit sections without problems? I can't edit the whole article on my tablet, but I can edit sections. - BilCat (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Article too long?

As of right now this article has a prose size of 105 KB. Per WP:SIZERULE, articles with prose size over 100 KB should "almost certainly should be divided". Would it be appropriate to split portions of this article into sub-articles? The most obvious section to be split would be the Program cost increases and delays section, which has an {{undue}} tag on it due to its length. Thoughts? sst✈^(discuss) 14:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Surely that would be a considered a POV fork and thus not a good idea? Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Some subjects are just larger than others, which is why WP:SIZERULE is a guideline and not a rule or policy and therefore not mandatory. The procurement articles have already been split out of here to make this smaller. - Ahunt (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

While it is certainly true that a guideline is not an absolute rule, it is meant to encourage editors to find ways to adhere to them when possible. Moving the program cost section to its own article as SSTflyer suggests, leaving only a brief summary of its most important aspects here in the main F-35 article, would certainly put it in a better position of compliance.

I also completely disagree with Antiochus the Great's claim that doing so would be a POV fork. We wouldn't have two articles with similar names competing with each other, nor would we be attempting to give undue prominence to a minority point of view. The new article created would maintain its current level of balance of opposing viewpoints, only it would exist in a different article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The development section (as a whole) is indeed extremely long. I would however, at this time, opt to leave it in. Once the plane is fully operational in significant numbers, we might consider splitting off the then largely historical development section. But let's leave it in as long as it is so central to current ongoing debate. Arnoutf (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It's 2016, the plane is flying and operating normally for a newly deployed airframe, and you guys are still leaving in the bashing section, which is probably courtesy of the Russian government. I have faith that one day this article won't look like the ridiculous attempt to discredit the plane that it is. Torriende (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Most of those two sections could be outright deleted. The majority of it is worthless conjecture, speculation or media spin wildly exaggerated. I'd be inclined to condense it down to the Pentagon reports over performance issues and then how these issues were fixed, and any official Audit reports that outline the cost overruns, why those occurred, and what measures were put in place to prevent further cost overruns. Left as is, it is very off-putting to any reader and 99% will skip those large blocks of boring text anyway. Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with User:Antiochus the Great most of the stuff was just speculation and tabloid stuff added to the article during development most of which is as Antiochus has said could be condensed and summarised. MilborneOne (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Dogfight

I read in the paper today that an F-35 recently lost a (mock) dogfight to a 1970s fighter. Is it so? is it relevant? 64.53.191.77 (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you referring to this? - Ahunt (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

That is mentioned in the article as "F-35 to be less maneuverable than an older F-16D" in the "Concerns over performance and safety" section. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 108 external links on Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150429094814/https://www.janes.com:80/article/50173/f-35b-on-track-for-operational-readiness-despite-software-challenges to http://www.janes.com/article/50173/f-35b-on-track-for-operational-readiness-despite-software-challenges
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/12/17/air-force-seeks-jets-beyond-c17-and-even-jsf.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120902025203/https://www.lockheedmartin.com:80/us/products/f35/global-partnerships.html to http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f35/global-partnerships.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120311001554/http://www.handling.com/TurnKeyCapabilities.aspx to http://www.handling.com/TurnKeyCapabilities.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090524210516/https://seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/html/politics/2008993406_apdefensebudget.html? to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008993406_apdefensebudget.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140301010024/https://www.strategicdefenceintelligence.com/article/IV9DSTecarI/2012/03/12/comment_bae_systems_hacked_by_chinese_spies to http://www.strategicdefenceintelligence.com/article/IV9DSTecarI/2012/03/12/comment_bae_systems_hacked_by_chinese_spies
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100818233320/https://www.flightglobal.com:80/articles/2010/08/16/346077/fix-for-f-35-final-assembly-problem-pushed-back.html to http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/08/16/346077/fix-for-f-35-final-assembly-problem-pushed-back.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101202044717/https://www.airforce-magazine.com:80/Features/modernization/Pages/box111510stovl.aspx to http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Features/modernization/Pages/box111510stovl.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101106010819/https://www.flightglobal.com:80/articles/2010/11/03/349254/lockheeds-f-35-faces-second-restructuring-this-year.html to http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/11/03/349254/lockheeds-f-35-faces-second-restructuring-this-year.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110113191713/https://www.flightglobal.com:80/articles/2010/12/14/350787/can-lockheed-deliver-on-the-joint-strike-fighter-dream.html to http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/12/14/350787/can-lockheed-deliver-on-the-joint-strike-fighter-dream.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310014625/https://www.brecorder.com/business-a-economy/single/672/189/1260018/ to http://www.brecorder.com/business-a-economy/single/672/189/1260018/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.terra.com/exclusive-retrofits-to-add-17-billion-to-cost-of-f-35-gao-report,31e15e7272e4d310VgnCLD2000000dc6eb0aRCRD.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110111051814/https://www.flightglobal.com:80/articles/2011/01/06/351600/us-military-unveils-possible-f-35b-redesign-in-sweeping-budget.html to http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/01/06/351600/us-military-unveils-possible-f-35b-redesign-in-sweeping-budget.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110304200652/https://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1543 to http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1543
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131027040520/https://www.aviationweek.com/Article/PrintArticle.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_05_21_2013_p0-580874.xml&p=1&printView=true to http://www.aviationweek.com/Article/PrintArticle.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_05_21_2013_p0-580874.xml&p=1&printView=true
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812015035/https://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/06/340121/usaf-rules-out-new-f-15s-and-f-16s-to-narrow-fighter.html to http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/06/340121/usaf-rules-out-new-f-15s-and-f-16s-to-narrow-fighter.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101009142954/https://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june10/defense_04-21.html to http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june10/defense_04-21.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120401201013/https://www.thebaynet.com:80/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/26946 to http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/26946
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921061245/https://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-26/pentagon-withholds-47-million-from-lockheed-on-f-35 to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-26/pentagon-withholds-47-million-from-lockheed-on-f-35
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.c-span.org/video/?314663-4/f35-lightning-ii-program
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150225120602/https://www.janes.com/article/40736/farnborough-2014-officials-announce-f-35-affordability-measures to http://www.janes.com/article/40736/farnborough-2014-officials-announce-f-35-affordability-measures
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2008/0919ae_f-35settingrecordstraight.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012064324/https://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FD/Temadokumenter/JSF_RBI-svar.pdf to http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FD/Temadokumenter/JSF_RBI-svar.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150202174103/https://www.acquisitionjournal.org/articles/NPS2010-02.pdf to http://www.acquisitionjournal.org/articles/NPS2010-02.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131027040249/https://www.aviationweek.com/Article/PrintArticle.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_05_27_2013_p03-578248.xml&p=1&printView=true to http://www.aviationweek.com/Article/PrintArticle.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_05_27_2013_p03-578248.xml&p=1&printView=true
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150314141102/https://www.pogo.org:80/our-work/straus-military-reform-project/weapons/2015/not-ready-for-prime-time.html to http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-military-reform-project/weapons/2015/not-ready-for-prime-time.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150611025543/https://www.pogo.org:80/our-work/straus-military-reform-project/weapons/2015/not-ready-for-prime-time.html? to http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-military-reform-project/weapons/2015/not-ready-for-prime-time.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/10/30/michael-byers-stewart-webb-on-the-f-35-the-plane-that-keeps-on-billing/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aviationweek.com/Article/PrintArticle.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_09_12_2013_p0-615904.xml&p=1&printView=true
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://defensetech.org/2014/04/16/pentagon-develops-f-35s-4th-generation-software/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150107032229/https://blogs.rollcall.com/five-by-five/lockheed-martin-on-f-35-no-gun-software-glitch-sensor-upgrades-expected/ to http://blogs.rollcall.com/five-by-five/lockheed-martin-on-f-35-no-gun-software-glitch-sensor-upgrades-expected/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35-capabilities.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100215024814/https://www.flightglobal.com:80/articles/2010/02/04/338045/lockheed-martin-sees-f-35a-replacing-usaf-air-superiority.html to http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/02/04/338045/lockheed-martin-sees-f-35a-replacing-usaf-air-superiority.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130404104050/https://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a7d4840f7-616f-4279-a3ae-ece678980c57 to http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A7d4840f7-616f-4279-a3ae-ece678980c57
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130603003222/https://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a295628f9-5afc-45a1-a7e9-d8b429e5ab99 to http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a295628f9-5afc-45a1-a7e9-d8b429e5ab99
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110530213822/https://www.flightglobal.com:80/articles/2011/05/26/357223/lockheed-martin-reveals-f-35-to-feature-nanocomposite.html to http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/05/26/357223/lockheed-martin-reveals-f-35-to-feature-nanocomposite.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429000949/https://www.businessweek.com:80/news/2011-04-21/lockheed-martin-f-35-operating-costs-may-reach-1-trillion.html to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-04-21/lockheed-martin-f-35-operating-costs-may-reach-1-trillion.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2014/January
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-touts-f-35-progress-predicts-competitive-pricing-394185/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090614073945/https://www.flightglobal.com:80/articles/2009/06/11/327771/rolls-royce-f136-survival-is-key-for-major-f-35-engine.html to http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/06/11/327771/rolls-royce-f136-survival-is-key-for-major-f-35-engine.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2010/08/27/01.xml&headline=Pratt
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2013/pdf/navy/2013cvn78.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606130602/https://www.gdatp.com/Products/Gun_Systems/Aircraft/F-35.asp to http://www.gdatp.com/Products/Gun_Systems/Aircraft/F-35.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717135842/https://www.gdatp.com/files/PDF/A118_GAU22.pdf to http://www.gdatp.com/files/PDF/A118_GAU22.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35-variants/f-35b-stovl-variant.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100921000829/https://www.flightglobal.com:80/articles/2010/09/17/347416/picture-mbda-reveals-clipped-fin-meteor-for-f-35.html to http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/09/17/347416/picture-mbda-reveals-clipped-fin-meteor-for-f-35.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101108145333/https://www.flightglobal.com:80/articles/2010/11/04/349306/raytheon-gets-darpa-boost-for-amraam-harm-replacement.html to http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/11/04/349306/raytheon-gets-darpa-boost-for-amraam-harm-replacement.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203014928/https://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140117/NEWS04/301170014 to http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140117/NEWS04/301170014
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2014/March
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20020708/aw32.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_military.jsp?view=story&id=news/masd0926.xml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20020722/aw173.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130520230214/https://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_05_20_2013_p24-579062.xml to http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_05_20_2013_p24-579062.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723171357/https://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2000/airforce/00jsf.html to http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2000/airforce/00jsf.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012064324/https://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FD/Temadokumenter/JSF_RBI-svar.pdf to http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FD/Temadokumenter/JSF_RBI-svar.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130907000042/http://aviationintel.com/2012/10/22/fast-history-lockheeds-diverterless-supersonic-inlet-testbed-f-16/ to http://aviationintel.com/2012/10/22/fast-history-lockheeds-diverterless-supersonic-inlet-testbed-f-16/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160423232632/https://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123071564 to http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123071564
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081021165256/https://www.jsf.org.uk:80/JSF-UK-Industry-Team/Martin-Baker.aspx to http://www.jsf.org.uk/JSF-UK-Industry-Team/Martin-Baker.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121120161246/https://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2012/October%202012/1012slow.pdf to http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2012/October%202012/1012slow.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-jpo-drops-development-of-bae-alternative-helmet-391623/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714034433/http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/06/dn_jsf_supersonic_061410/ to http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/06/dn_jsf_supersonic_061410/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100110005120/https://www.businessweek.com:80/news/2010-01-06/lockheed-f-35-purchases-delayed-in-pentagon-s-fiscal-2011-plan.html to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-06/lockheed-f-35-purchases-delayed-in-pentagon-s-fiscal-2011-plan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131027014134/http://www.jber.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123156090 to http://www.jber.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123156090
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=782
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35b-grounded-after-fueldraulic-line-failure-381264/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/01/29/pentagon-crimped-line-caused-f-35b-grounding/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20130213/NEWS/302130306/Pentagon-clears-F-35B-to-resume-test-flights
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120113195802/https://www.businessweek.com:80/news/2011-12-09/u-s-senators-press-panetta-to-review-f-35-training-safety.html to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-09/u-s-senators-press-panetta-to-review-f-35-training-safety.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-unit-completes-f-35-oue-activity-379117/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110529052624/http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=63158 to http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=63158
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110428154152/http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/03/navy-more-marines-to-fly-f35c-031411w/ to http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/03/navy-more-marines-to-fly-f35c-031411w/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.deagel.com/news/First-of-144-F-35A-Lightning-II-Stealth-Jets-Arrives-at-Luke-AFB_n000012469.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/473693/first-f-35-lightning-ii-arrives-at-luke-afb
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071004212446/https://www.teamjsf.com/jsf/data.nsf/75public/07CF737749FA9E5585256F3900720288?OpenDocument to https://www.teamjsf.com/jsf/data.nsf/75public/07CF737749FA9E5585256F3900720288?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100922154022/https://www.ic.gc.ca:80/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/eng/ad03863.html to http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/eng/ad03863.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120521004950/https://turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=378853 to http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=378853#.T-xxLsr4JfA
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120410034623/http://www.canada.com:80/timeline+Canada+involvement+program/6419249/story.html to http://www.canada.com/timeline+Canada+involvement+program/6419249/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404231411/https://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/04/andrew-coyne-the-f-35-affair-is-a-fiasco-from-top-to-bottom/ to http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/04/andrew-coyne-the-f-35-affair-is-a-fiasco-from-top-to-bottom/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/f-35-project-to-earn-turkey-12-billion.aspx?pageID=238&nid=46581&NewsCatID=345
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903055724/https://www.flightglobal.com:80/articles/2011/07/15/359508/f-35-lrip-overrun-value-raised-to-1.15b.html to http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/07/15/359508/f-35-lrip-overrun-value-raised-to-1.15b.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140424193230/https://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_07_30_2013_p0-602401.xml to http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_07_30_2013_p0-602401.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221095128/https://www.airforce-magazine.com:80/MagazineArchive/Pages/2007/July%202007/0707lightning.aspx to http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2007/July%202007/0707lightning.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/07/19/jsf-heat-woes-being-fixed-trautman/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-marine-corps-aviation-branch-plans-to-invest-in-fighter-jets-helicopters-transports-and-225796/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:27103ee8-d867-4e32-a619-92297fa29cf3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022030447/https://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_07_15_2013_p42-594937.xml to http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_07_15_2013_p42-594937.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140602021021/https://www.janes.com:80/article/38374/australia-could-buy-f-35b? to http://www.janes.com/article/38374/australia-could-buy-f-35b
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090731151548/https://frontierindia.net:80/f-35c-lightning-ii-rolled-out to http://frontierindia.net/f-35c-lightning-ii-rolled-out#more-4226
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2013/06/us-navy-fleet-squadron-receives-1st-f-35c-jsf/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=74982
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/uavs-and-the-f-35-partners-in-air-power/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510231649/https://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_08_06_2012_p28-482027.xml to http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_08_06_2012_p28-482027.xml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/iai-aims-to-complete-f-35-wing-facility-in-mid-2014-389673/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://o.canada.com/news/national/military-will-contract-out-air-to-air-refuelling-if-canada-goes-with-f-35/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parl.gc.ca/pbo-dpb/documents/F-35_Cost_Estimate_EN.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/australia-to-confirm-58-aircraft-f-35-order-398443/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150716093703/https://www.janes.com/article/43725/update-south-korea-agrees-to-buy-f-35s to http://www.janes.com/article/43725/update-south-korea-agrees-to-buy-f-35s
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/27/us-turkey-defence-fighterjets-idUSBREA1Q1ES20140227
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101227142041/http://www.eglin.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=15686 to http://www.eglin.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=15686
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140325154910/https://www.luke.af.mil:80/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=5003 to http://www.luke.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=5003
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140502002846/https://www.edwards.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123353189 to http://www.edwards.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123353189
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150210155135/https://archive.defensenews.com/article/20120515/DEFREG01/305150010/Italian-AF-Navy-Head-F-35B-Showdown to http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20120515/DEFREG01/305150010/Italian-AF-Navy-Head-F-35B-Showdown
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110529052624/http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=63158 to http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=63158
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110428154152/http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/03/navy-more-marines-to-fly-f35c-031411w/ to http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/03/navy-more-marines-to-fly-f35c-031411w/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110325034939/https://www.marines.mil/unit/hqmc/Pages/MarineCorpscontinuesflyingwithJointStrikeFighterprogram.aspx to http://www.marines.mil/unit/hqmc/Pages/MarineCorpscontinuesflyingwithJointStrikeFighterprogram.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150511095816/https://www.lockheedmartin.com:80/us/products/f35/f-35c-carrier-variant.html to http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f35/f-35c-carrier-variant.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130623150446/https://www.reuters.com/article/2009/01/21/idUS152956+21-Jan-2009+PRN20090121 to http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/01/21/idUS152956+21-Jan-2009+PRN20090121
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141207170603/http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010%20nuclear%20posture%20review%20report.pdf to http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010%20Nuclear%20Posture%20Review%20Report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Program cost

I believe program costs should be standardized across all aircraft related articles on wikipedia so we can compare apples to apples. For example F-35 program cost include buying airplanes in the next 50 year as well as operational cost. On the other hand Boeing 787 cost only include Boeing R&D cost so far. They sold 500 787s for 300 million each which is 150 bn which is not included in program cost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.94.209 (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Military and commercial aircraft are financed and operated differently, so standardization is probably not possible. - BilCat (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

More encyclopedy-ish approach - history - and possible solution to length problem

The history of this aircraft isn't apparent. I started to say there wasn't one, but now I see it is there, just buried. There are some paragraphs that read like a brochure.

An article that follows the encyclopedia form is the A-10 article, for example. The introductory material gives a brief "What" description for the reader. The body of the article starts with the When & Why - the background situation that created the need for the plane and then provides the rest of the history, which is then followed by more detail about the What, the subject of the article:

After WW II no calls for conventional military planes; focus was on nuclear bomb delivery; enter Korean War & start of Vietnam War; used WW II plane; planes "vulnerable to ground fire"; somebody decided to create a plane that would overcome those problems: On 7 Jun '61 MacNamara orders AF to design new planes; AF responds with design; various aircraft try to fill the void; then 1966 A-10 development starts with RFP (1967); additional requests change design & AF modifies RFP 1970; Fairchild gets contract to make X aircraft; prototypes 1972; testing; 1975 first A-10 rolls-out.

See Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Background

This article has some paragraphs like that, but in others the dates are buried. I realize that the primary reason why it's so hard to tease out the history is because the F-35's developmemt has been just a bit more "complicated." However, reading both the Joint Strike Fighter program article and this one (F-35), the reader isn't going to get the story/history of the F-35 without a lot of work.

The introductory material gives the story around now - 2014-16. In the body of the article, the first date the reader encounters is 2040, in the second full paragraph. The main article seems to start in medias res, unanchored by dates. Here the reader isn't anchored in time until the third paragraph when the reader learns a contract was awarded in 1996. So it starts out with now, tells reader about the future, then tells the before story. The JSF Program article has no dates in the introductory material, and gets to the beginning of the story in the middle of the second paragraph of the main body.

I also don't get a really clear picture of the Why other than this is the result of some recommendation (JSF Program article, 3rd paragraph of main article). I assume that the Why is because the aircraft being used by the three branches of the military (and our NATO allies) are quite out of date.

I think everything from "Design Phase" up to where Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Design begins - except "Upgrades" in the F-35 article should be moved to the JSF Program article and that the history/timeline should be given in that article, in a chronological format - after explaining the Why more clearly:

Around X date, the {military branch} was looking for an aircraft to replace {current aircraft(s) being used} because {reason}. {Branch 2} also needed to replace its aging fleet of {current aircraft(s) being used}. These two decided to combine requirements into one aircraft because {reasom}, thus CALF. Navy was trying to develop JAST because. DoD recommendation in 1992/93 led to merger, eventually JSF - the What/Subject of that article. Then UK. Then Canada.

Then this article should provide a brief summary of the JSF Program, and a link, then start with Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Design. That will move much of the info on cost overruns to the project itself without cluttering up an article which will, if things work out well, just be about the aircraft. "Upgrades" should be placed later in this article - probably after design; you can't discuss improvements to the engine when you haven't talked about the engine yet.

And that's as far as I've gotten. Thoughts? Ileanadu (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Most of the article was written as a daily "news blog" mainly listing every negative comment made during the programme and you are correct that it really needs a good sort out to make it more encyclopedic, with hindsight most of the content about cost overuns could be pruned down to a few lines. MilborneOne (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, the only stuff to be report about the aircraft for the longest time was problems and the costs. The section about the design, the engine, the helmet, etc. looks very nice. I came here actually because I wanted to get some idea of how long exactly this has been in the works and how much it has cost & is anticipated to cost. However, I can't really figure out the latter. The procurment table is very nice, but I don't know what exactly a "batch" is, so I don't know the multiplier, for one. Second, I don't know if these are actual expenditures, or anticipated expenditures. It sure would be nice to know how much it has cost so far & how much it will cost per plane, just for our military. Although we may never know, just like with the wars. You used "programme" so, may assume you are British? Because with regard to cost I don't know if our military lets Lockheed set the price with each country or whether we charge a recovery "fee" or bear some of the cost and report it as military assistance given. I also imagine this may vary from country to country.

Oh, there was something recent I just ran across that I didn't see in the article. Apparently they have been requiring that pilots weigh at least 165 pounds because of risks upon ejection, but now think they can eliminate that. I don't know if that's related to the helmet issue that is described in this article. Ileanadu (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Cost overruns

The recently added material on cost overruns is sourced to Bloomberg Businessweek which doesn't look like "spam" to me. Can we discuss these additions and the best place to put them? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

First of all the same total cost text does not belong in 4-5 places in the article. I cut this down be in the Cost overrun section and the Lead. There is far too much detail and redundancy in sections of this article, i.e. WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Your edit seems quite fair and reasonable to me. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The cited Bloomberg article states "With the program about seven years behind schedule, the Pentagon estimates it will spend $379 billion over 40 years to develop and acquire more than 2,440 of the warplanes. Adjusting for inflation, that’s a 38 percent increase from the initial 2001 estimate. Add more than $600 billion for upkeep, and the total price tag approaches $1 trillion." -- Yet, the poster said "Bloomberg Businessweek reported on 10 April 2017 that the total procurement expenditures for the F-35 program was approaching $1 trillion." -- Well, total "procurement" is not the same as "procurement" and "upkeep". So, the added text does not reflect what the article conveys. Also, I already posted the budget totals for the program, which are "US$1.508 trillion (through 2070 in then-year dollars), US$55.1B for RDT&E, $319.1B for procurement, $4.8B for MILCON, $1123.8B for operations & sustainment (2015 estimate)" --Obivader (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you simply saying that "total price tag" is not the same as "total procurement expenditures"? I'd say the word "approaching" may be a mis misleading if we're talking about total estimated costs through until 2070. But when does Bloomberg's 40 years begin and end? Also "trillion" is a nice big round number, but it's still unclear how many billion that is more then the Bloomberg sum. Is is £21 billion more? Bloomberg doesn't say. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Procurement cost means the cost to acquire the planes. The cost to procure all 2443 F-35s (with production going out to 2038), is $319.1 billion. That is in "then-year" dollars. If you want to add the cost to develop and test the plane, that's another $55.1 billion (for a total of $374.2 billion). The big cost is "operations and sustainment", at just over $1.1 trillion. This is the cost to fly and maintain the plane (fuel, maintenance, spare parts, upgrades, weapons expenditures, etc) until the last F-35 is retired in 2070. This is also in "then-year" dollars. The added text in the wikipedia article say "procurement" is adding up to a trillion dollars, which is simply not true. The Bloomberg article itself is closer to being accurate, in that it specifies most of the cost is "upkeep". However, the budget information I provided in a prior revision is more detailed and accurate. In short, the Bloomberg article provides less detailed and less accurate information than was already presented in the wikipedia page, and the revision by the poster butchered the article further, changing what the article actually said. I believe the revisions should be removed completely. Obivader (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

My, my. And who exactly predicts the cost of "operations"? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The Joint Program Office (JPO). Obivader (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that source, which looks a tad more reliable than Bloomberg. A tricky cost estimate, though, one might say. I realise that governments need budgets. But someone might decide that the US "cannot be the policeman of the world" anymore? And they might then just change their mind, at the drop of a hat? I guess there are very high-powered committees that prevent such wild fluctuations. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, they are estimates, and there are many things that could affect these costs. The price of fuel, inflation, World War III, etc. However, without factoring in these costs, you don't get anywhere near the trillion dollars mentioned in the revision to this page. The Bloomberg mention should be removed, as a more detailed estimate is already present. Obivader (talk) 08:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. It's not straightforward, is it. Let's see what others think. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Supporting both Martinevans comments and Fnlayson template comment that some of the sections, particularly on Budget and cost related topics are becoming over-developed in this large article. Possibly it makes sense to consider creating a new page for the Budget and cost issues of the program and separating them out as a separate article. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds a good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not really encyclopedic to have point by point event content like this article has on costs and other issues. The Costs text needs to be written in summary manner either here or in a separate article. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I again have to object to the "Bloomberg" edit. The edit misrepresents what the cited article stated. That alone is cause for at least a major rewording. However, since a much more detailed budget estimate is already present, the edit is redundant and should be removed. I am removing it now. Obivader (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, it shouldn't be in the article else atleast include the fact it is refering to 2070 then-year dollars. — IVORK _Discuss 00:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Obivader; Your edit was reverted by Martinevans with whom I have stated my support. Establish consensus on the Talk page here prior to edits. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Resolving Undue Weight template

Continuing from the previous Article too long? -discussion: There's been an Undue Weight -template in the article since May 2015. Perhaps we should finally do something about it. I'm considering moving the most bloated chapters Program cost overruns and delays and Concerns over performance and safety into one sub-article. Only some of their content would be left and the rest would be placed into new main article (like Joint Strike Fighter program for chapter JSF program requirements and selection). Any opinions regarding this? --Ras (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I think this has to be approached carefully. The most unique thing about this aircraft has been it development problems and this shouldn't be moved or cut without careful consideration. - Ahunt (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the OP, good idea to move into one sub-article, giving consideration to Ahunt's concerns. Twobells (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Editor Ahunt is right. The most significant thing about this jet - at least until there is an eventful history after roll-out - has been the development problems. So, an only half tongue-in-cheek suggestion: Consider user typing "F-35" leading to an article titled "The F-35 Development Program" ("or The F-35 Project") where the user can find the history of the program [see my comment below], its problems, cost overruns, government response, etc. and then below the title of that article provide a disambiguation link [is there a term for those] to an article about the plane itself. In the article about the plane, have a brief summary of the development problems that then links to the Development Program. What is it most Wikipedia users will want to know if they are looking up "F-35/F35"? Also, this should be a cautionary tale for any future citizens who will be contemplating the development of a sixth generation aircraft. Ileanadu (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

"What is it most Wikipedia users will want to know if they are looking up "F-35/F35?" you ask? If your answer to that question is "how awful it is" then I think your perspective has been distorted severely. Like with any other article, most wiki users will want a generalized overview of the topic, not a point-by-point biased, vitriolic, onerously long, almost unreadable fifty thousand words of outdated garbage about how this-and-that system that has been functioning as intended since 2011 malfunctioned way back when. 90% of that nonsense should be OUTRIGHT DELETED as no longer relevant. No other aviation article, including ones about programs whose problems ultimately led them to be cancelled, has such a colossal pile of nit-picked negativity associated with it. Moving it all to its own article is a far more than reasonable compromise with the many editors who have spent much of the past decade working to try to justify their own inexplicable hate for this program. Torriende (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)