Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II

Shots in slightly different angle.

X35

X35

X35

File:X35STOVL4.JPG

X35

X35

awesome. Looks like the new Udvar-Hazy (damn the spelling) addition. I'm dying to spend a few days there sometime. mnemonic 08:28, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

WikiProject Aircraft

shouldn't this article conform to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft? mnemonic 08:25, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

HUD

I removed The F-35, which will have helmet-mounted displays, will be the first combat aircraft in history without a heads-up-display.[11]

This seems an incredibly daft statement. Did WWI and WWII combat aircraft really have HUD's !?

I've replaced it with something a little less blind to history.--62.173.76.218 11:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yak-41

I removed this section until it can be substantiated:

The JSF (F-35) design is based on the soviet Yakovlev-41 supersonic, VTOL naval fighter-bomber plane. The blueprints were sold by the cash-strapped Yakovlev bureau in the early 90's. The USA refined the plans previously made by Yakovlev for a land-based STOL variant dubbed Yak-141 into the F-35. The soviet's two small vertical lift jet engines were thrown out, while Rolls-Royce developed a new powerplant, based on the soviet swiveling-tailpipe design, which could also spin a large, horizontal central fan for cold lift thrust. Other than that, the Yak-141 shape changed relatively little, mostly to boost stealth capabilities and incorporate hidden weapons bays. Internally a lot has been changed, but structurally and with regards to electronics, the plane was essentially redesigned. -Joseph (Talk) 19:53, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

The above indeed is inaccurate. It should say that Yak-141 inspired the F-35, since they are two completely different aircrafts. I found something on the JSF official website:

The exhaust from the engine flows through the 3 Bearing Swivel Nozzle (3BSN). The 3BSN nozzle, developed by Rolls-Royce, was patterned along the lines of the exhaust system on the Yakovlev Yak-141 STOVL prototype that flew at the 1992 Farnborough air show. A US Navy program also developed swivel nozzles in the late 1960's and was proposed for a supersonic STOVL design by Convair (one of the Lockheed Martin heritage companies) in the early 1970's. (JSF Concept) Jigen III

Thanks for removing that fanboy tripe about the F-35 being based on the Yak-141. Lockheed purchased Yakovlev's lift fan performance data and nothing more.

It is a matter of fact that F-35 is much as "Yakovlesky", as the Tu-144 was "Konkordsky". Since Lockhead did pay the russkies hard cash for all the blueprints, technology and mock-ups they got, I see no problem admitting it, apart form shattering the yankees' sense of exceptionless technological superiorty. The Yak-41/141 connection should be definitely mentioned in the article, because its entire omission is definitely biased! 195.70.32.136 10:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Australian JSF vs. F/A-22

I reverted the commentary on American unwillingness to sell the F/A-22 to Australia because it doesn't fit with reports on the issue. In Houston's speech justifying the JSF purchase, nowhere does he say that the US wouldn't sell Raptors to us if we were prepared to fork out the cash. Greg Sheridan has also said in The Australian (can't stand the bloke, but he seems to be reasonably well-briefed on such things) that the US Government has said we can have Raptors if we are prepared to fork out for them. Historically, the Americans have been perfectly willing to sell their hot hardware to us.

So why would they not be prepared to sell us the Raptor but not the full-whack JSF? The argument is somewhat more subtle than what appeared in the previous edit. The JSF is going to be fairly widely exported, to countries that are less trusted than Australia to not pass the technology on to competitors with their own aircraft industry. However, it will be rather politically difficult for the US to allow some partners in the project better aircraft than others. With the Raptor, nobody else is asking for them (amongst other reasons, nobody else can afford the damn things) so the US wouldn't be offending anybody by selling them to Australia. --Robert Merkel 04:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The official F-22 site (www.f22-raptor.com) once stated that the aircraft would not be available for international export. Also, many have placed Israel at the top of the list of potential foreign customers (considering its past purchases of F-15s, F-16s and its high defense expenditures).

195.70.32.136 10:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Uncited, unproved and POV. Cite some sources, change your tone, and I'll listen. That goes for the unsigned comment and the IP adress. --The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 17:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

the "analysis" section

is POV and original research. It does not belong in any encyclopedia. It's good, but not encyclopedic information.

--Yes, especially the ALIS section needs editing. It has ridiculously POV and incoherent information.

I rode in the F-35, it was fun.

history

The History in this article... isn't. There is no mention of the JAST program that lead to the JSF.

sugarfish 00:15, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You seem well informed. I suggest you edit the article -- Cabalamat 01:26, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Done. sugarfish 04:13, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

SEAD

Will it be capable of SEAD missions? Jigen III 08:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It had better be; most of the foriegn partners won't have anything else to do the job (nor will the UK when they're operating off their carriers... --Robert Merkel 09:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

International partners

Nowhere in any official documentation is the United States referred to as a "Level I" participant and the other countries as levels II through IV. Always they are referred to as international partners with the UK as the sole level I partner and the others at levels II and III. While it's not strictly inacurate to place the US at the top and renumber the rest down one, this is not the way it is referred to by international governments or even in US government documents. I have therefore changed this section to reflect the official nomenclature.

--Reply--I apologize for being a newbie, I'm unsure how to reply in "discussion" pages. I quickly perused this International Partners section and I was left unclear as to the role of the US. Noting that the UK is the sole level I partner said to me that they were the leader, and the others were lesser contributors. The problem is, I didn't see where the US's role was delineated (including what financial investment it had made). I apologize if I am unclear and missed something obvious.

F/A-35

Shouldn't they designate it F/A rather than just F? It'll do ground attacks like the F/A-22 and F/A-18. And the USMC version will be in the close air support role, so an A will make sense.

Reply: Most fighter jets also handle attack missions. The F-16 is more commonly used in an attack role than in air-to-air combat. The F117 and F111 are both exclusively for attack and bombing missions. The 'A' designation is more used as a promo gimmick than as a real differentiation between roles. All jets are multirole now - that's just assumed.

They should make designations more consistant. Marketing has too much precedence over practicality.

Not all jets are multirole now, an example is the F-15C, in the U.S. it is not capable of ground attack, however, the IAF has used it to drop dumb bombs. And the F-117 is not capable of A2A combat. So it is still a designation that is used, they recently changed the F-22 to the F/A-22 for this reason. The F-16 was originally designed as a short-range dogfighter without A2G capabilites, that was later in its life that it was used for that, which is why it is only the F-16 and not the F/A-16.

In a military situation, uprated attack aircraft are as a general rule far more useful than better A2A fighters, as military use of A2A combat is usually restricted to those countries who have an air force good enough to shoot down a purely attack squad without suffering huge losses of efficiency (for example, chasing a supercruising plane with a subsonic model is not going to be strategically sound.) On another note, if I recall correctly from the F117A Stealth Fighter article, the F- designation on that model has never been explained, although some theroies have been proposed to deal with this quandary. As this plane can only carry a total armament of 2 missiles, it is not suited to A2A combat as this greatly increases radar signature, and additionally defeats its original purpose, which is effective air to ground attack.

Does anyone know how the A-10 will be replaced?

--The1exile 01:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The F/A-22 designation has apparently reverted to plain F-22, and the only reasons the F/A-18 is still called that is bureaucratic inertia (it's been called that since the late 70's) and to differentiate it from the non attack capable Swiss and Finnish Hornets. Still, I think the designation *should* be changed - to F-24, which is the next designation in the proper Tri-service Designation System. (Still, it's not the first time we get a goof like this due to some politician/aide who couldn't spell right - IIRC, the SR-71 was supposed to have been called RS-71...) --SebastianP 09:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The Royal Navy and the Carrier Variant

Is the Royal Navy still considering ordering the C variant as is stated in the introduction? It was my belief that the Royal Navy had definitely chosen the STOVL (B variant) JSF for the CVF carriers since they did not require expensive catapults to be added to the ships. Nick Worth 23:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Variant Conversion?

With 80% commonality, would it be possible to, say, convert an A-variant to a B- or C-variant? Jigen III 13:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This is impossible to say at the current time. Whilst on a technical level I cannot see why it wouldn't be possible, I can see no reason why there would be a need to convert between variants. Its highly unlikely therefore that the mechanisms and devices to convert between variants will ever be made.

Featured Article Candidate

I have suggested that this article become a featured article, and some people have suggested changes to improve quality. I am implementing these changes; if you can help out or lend your support to the proposition to make it a featured article then please do so: I can use all the help I can get. --The1exile 12:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-vehicle differentiator?

This section contains a lot of techno-babble. I am not an engineer, but it makes absolutely no sense. I presume it was copied from a press-release. Before even considering this as a featured article, can an expert in this field clear up what is meant by that in plain english? It seems to have something to do with keeping maintenance down by using mass-produced components..

Error in engine thrust figures

The article refers to two engine types, a standard and a "High Performance", but the lbf given for the high-spec engine is less than standard, but the SI units show a higher thrust.

1. Primary: 1x Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan 43,000 lbf (165 kN) thrust
2. Secondary (High Performance): 1x General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 afterburning turbofan 40,000 lbf (178 kN) thrust

Fixed the lbf; they are obsolete and inaccurate, I did some rough calculations and found the High Performance to come to over 700,000 lbf. It is quite possible my calculations are inaccurate, but the lbf measurements are gone now. I also fixed some text layout, but I could still use some help. --The1exile 20:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think where the lbf measurements came from were different sources. From the Pratt & Whitney F135 article I can already see that the stats come to 178 kN for the engine, while the High Performance engine, the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 is also 178 kN for the entire system. There is a minor change in lbf, but I am not sure these are accurate; I dont know why the secondary engine is labelled High Performance anyway, if I can't find credible sources then I will remove this. --The1exile 13:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

FAC failure, any ideas to improve it?

The FAC has failed, in spite of everything that was pointed out as a problem being fixed. I will still attempt to improve this article, any ideas on how to? --The1exile 16:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You could include inline ciations, I suppose. Also, some of the pictures do not have sources, which is a breeding ground for objections. I wish I had seen this on the FAC page, I would have voted for it. Sorry. TomStar81 23:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought the writing was very good, enjoyable to read. Some ideas:

• The format/layout/arrangement was a little confusing to me at first, I see some of it came from Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content. Maybe could use a little polishing, especially near the end, and tweaked to fit the subject. I'll try to work on the reference section.
• Statements like this need references: Reportedly, export versions for some countries other than the UK may be subject to some restrictions and carry different mission systems. What equipment would be changed, and the difference in capabilities is not known.
• There were a bunch of spelling errors (according to SpellBound) and a mixture of American and British English (I fixed some of this).
• OK, the end formatting could look more like Convair B-36 which is a featured article.
• Could use a media section, there is probably some good PD video from the mil sites. Sullevon 00:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I will see if I can fix these problems then. Citation, sourcing and references can be done, and spelling can probably be fixed (when both British and American editors contribute this is a common problem). However, videos I cannot help with, I can't get this PC to access them. --The1exile 12:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think the spelling needs to be standardized on American English, since its mostly an American topic. Not sure about this though.
• I've found some video but need to convert it to the Ogg format. Anyone know how to do this? --Sullevon 23:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Suggestion: rewrite the Design section and move up to after program history. Currently has good info on different manufacturers. Should be some writing on the planes unique design in the design section, along with some more images. --Sullevon 00:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sullevon, thanks for the suggestions, and I can't help you with video conversions. But moving the design section is a problem, as then it is not in accordance with WP:AIR, and that was a problem when I voted this article for FA status (see the subpage). And if you want to change the spelling to merican English, then do so, but I use and contribute in British English and have dictionaries for British English, not American English. --The1exile 16:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I've moved the design section back to where it started. --Sullevon 17:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added a media section with video, if anyone else has video they want converted, let me know. Sullevon 17:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

GA Status

This article is by far Good Article status. I think that the format may need a few tweaks (see above), and some more citations. Deckiller 23:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

International participation POV

This entire section paints a gloomy picture of dissatisfied partners with the US. For example,

The CEO of BAE Systems, the British contractor on the plane, has complained that the US has not given the UK (and his company) access to the crucial source code of the plane's software, thus making it impossible for the UK to maintain and modify the JSF independently.

This statement needs context. Did the UK and BAE secure access for the source code prior to entering the project? Or are they just whining after the fact and trying to change the terms they already agreed to? Full picture needed.

Likewise, other partners complaining that they aren't getting enough manufacturing work from the project; what was their agreed share? Does their (lack of) technically capability have anything to do with bid awards?--Sullevon 18:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I added a reference and a paragraph. Apparently the UK expects the US congress to grant a waiver for technology transfer to the UK, yet they won't tighten up their own laws on transferring that technology to third countries, among other concerns.

Also, The last paragraph regarding various countries unhappy with the bid awards; should include statements by countries, like Turkey, that have indicated their happiness with the awards so far. (I'll try to find a reference for this)--Sullevon 19:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

Now that this article is starting to look a lot better, I have put it up for peer review because a member of WP:Air suggested it. --The1exile 16:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Should we be putting our comments here or at PR or both? Some things I've intended to do but not sure when I'll have time:

• Expand design section. Add rendering of VTOL system if I can find one. Unique manufacturing and design features?
• Some of the reference links are now dead, replacement references or links need to be found for numbers 2 and 5.
• Find recent information about the direct energy weapons that were supposed to be nearly operational several years ago. Current references are a couple of years old.
• What is current production status? I think the first planes are moving through the assembly line now, but it wasn't clear from the jsf website if these are just part of the development cycle prior to rampup.
• Scheduled service: I added a paragraph in the intro about when the plane is to enter service, but it lacks information for UK, Aus. etc... --Sullevon 19:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you should put comments; I have never had experience with PR's before. Having a PR mainly serves to make more people notice this article. Put them here for now; if a discussion at PR starts then perhaps suggestions should also be posted there. --The1exile 19:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ready to submit to FAC again? Will that first image prevent it getting through? --PopUpPirate 22:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Which version(s) for the RAF?

The information on the version(s) that will be used by the RAF is not consistent in the current text, as illustrated by the quotes below:

"Three JSF variants are envisioned: the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) F-35A for the U.S. Air Force (USAF) and the RAF; the Advanced Short Take-Off Vertical Landing (ASTOVL) F-35B for the US Marine Corps (USMC) and the Royal Navy (RN); and the carrier-based (CV) F-35C for the U.S. Navy (USN). The USAF is considering the F-35B. The Royal Navy is considering ordering the F-35C variant for its large CVF Future Carrier program."

"The STOVL variant had been viewed as the most likely victim of cost-cutting measures; however a USAF "commitment" seems to guarantee the aircraft that the USMC, RN, and RAF need."

"Even the UK, which has no CTOL JSF requirement, (...)" Buxtehude 02:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Specifications section is screwed up

Wing area: 35 ft 0 in (10.65 m).

Someone familiar with Template:Airtemp might want to fix this (I'm too dumb to decifer the template). --Duk 22:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Seems OK to me (unless it's been fixed?) --PopUpPirate 23:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• area main=459.6 ft² vs Wing area: 35 ft 0 in (10.65 m) in the rendered article. Should be 459.6 ft² --Duk 23:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• • See what you mean. Looks like some syntax problem with the template itself, so I've done it in wiki --PopUpPirate 00:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Reference order

When references are shuffled in the article they need to be shuffled in the reference section to match. (they are currently out of order and messed up, again). --Sullevon 03:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. --PopUpPirate 11:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Overall Costs

Perhaps there should be a section on overall costs, similair to the paragraph on partnership levels, but including the US' share? —Aiden 20:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

March 8 2006: section removed

I have removed the following section:

This dominance can only have been achieved by Lockheed's method of STOVL flight; in fact, the decision is said to have clinched the contract.
The construction contract, System Development and Demonstration (SDD), was awarded on 26 October, 2001 to the Lockheed Martin X-35, beating the Boeing X-32. The first planes are expected to enter service in 2008. Announcing the decision, DoD officials and the UK Minister of Defence Procurement said that while both aircraft met or exceeded requirements, the X-35 outperformed the Boeing aircraft consistently.
However, in retrospect, the claim the the X-35 "outperformed the Boeing aircraft consistently" may not have been fully accurate, and perhaps the claim is a little telling. It is not unreasonable to contribute the reason for the X-35's selection to the fact that the DoD did not want an airplane monopoly (just two primes by the 1990's). If the Boeing design had won, then the DoD would only have one fighter airframe maker (Lockheed might have been out of that business line if they lost JSF). Selecting to avoid a monopoly is a long standing, though typically "unvoiced" criteria. (Boeing makes, or significantly contributes to the F-18, F-15 and F-22 airframes). Fighter engine selections in the 1960-70's are a case in point; at the time of the DoD announcement the selected turbojet was hailed as superior - years later it would be quitely made known that the prevention of a monopoly was actually the overriding criteria.
Typically features unique to the favored non-monopoly concept is then touted as the reason for it's selection, though ironically in the X-35's case, it was at the time its highly complex Remote Shaft-Driven Lift Fan. (Throughout the competition the fan was failure prone and actually did fail on at least one occasion during the fly-off period).
The Boeing entry met all specifications and would have been less costly to manufacture (the current problem with the X-35). The initial goal of the JSF program, the procurement of a low-cost-of-manufacture single engine fighter to replace the aging F-16, may have in fact been achieved by the X-32 design team; it is not unreasonable to attribute its "non-select" to the other, unvoiced factor. Years later, once the X-35's cost-of-manufacture and weight problems became intractable, US Navy and European government personnel began to express interest in dropping out of the JSF program, landing a real blow to the concept of a "Joint" Strike Fighter.

Reasons

• Much of it POV/unsourced statements. e.g. "This dominance can only have been achieved by Lockheed's method of STOVL flight" — that is what I understand as well but it needs a source. or "The Boeing entry met all specifications and would have been less costly to manufacture (the current problem with the X-35)"
• Too many "may not..." "perhaps.." — unencylopediaic language
• The hypothesis that Lockheed's X-35 was selected because the DoD didn't want an aircraft monopoly (Boeing) "Lockheed might have been out of that business line if they lost JSF" — That is rediculous, that was the argument against Lockheed Martin, as it already leads the F-22. It was Boeing who were named as a potential casualty and lead to calls by US politicians for the ditching of the 'winner takes all' strategy
• "Years later, once the X-35's cost-of-manufacture and weight problems became intractable, US Navy and European government personnel began to express interest in dropping out of the JSF program, landing a real blow to the concept of a "Joint" Strike Fighter." — please name a country or a US service who has seriously discussed pulling out. The UK has, but as a lever for tech transfer. Sources too please. Mark83 19:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Which currency?

The biggest international partner, the United Kingdom, has invested two billion in development funding for the project.

I assume that figure is in US dollars - could someone who knows for sure please make it explicit if so? Loganberry (Talk) 00:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where it says this, but the figure is mentioned in the first paragraph in the table of contents mentions "a little under $2 billion" as the British investment. --The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 17:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It says it in the second paragraph of the "International participation" section. Loganberry (Talk) 01:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Su-47?

How is this aircraft related to the Su-47? I see little to no similarity. One has forward swept wings and the other does not, and one was designed exclusively for air superiority and the other was not. Unless someone can explain this to me I will remove the reference. LWF 03:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not about physical similarity, but that they are aircraft of a similar generation and generally similar mission. Everybody's multimission now and there's no fine grain of distinction between air superiority and strike fighters. It's more useful to relate the (few) fighters of a similar generation than to separate them. As the article Su-47 states, it's designed to compete with the F-22 and F-35. I agree it's more similar to the F-22, but nonetheless they are competing fifth generation designs. In the same vein the F-35 was not designed exclusively for air superiority and the F-22 was, but they are still similar aircraft by virtue of having largely overlapping missions in the same timeframe. --Mmx1 03:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The F-35 is a very real aircraft which is going to production - the Su-47 was a concept design for Sukhoi to test out some new ideas and see how forward-swept wings fared. It is in no way going to a production line. You can't compare them. Joffeloff 19:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so up on the Russian prototypes. I didn't know it was just a concept. Go ahead and nuke it then. --Mmx1 19:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed it - it's really not related at all since it is designed to be a highly agile dogfighter without any 'stealth'-inducing shaping to the fuselage. It's more comparable to the F-22 or better yet, the Eurofighter. But even then, it's still a one-off. Joffeloff 20:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I removed Su-47 a while ago. I wonder who put it back in. LWF 20:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The resident Russian fighter cheering section. --Mmx1 21:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

A-10 replacement?

I reinstated the A-10 replacement phrase. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've looked everywhere and can't find any authoritative corroboration of the F-35 NOT replacing the A-10. OTOH, there are many apparently credible recent statements saying the Air Force plans to replace the A-10 with the F-35:

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/
• http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=12874&rsbci=0&fti=112&ti=0&sc=400
• http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=13058&rsbci=0&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400
• http://www.jsf.mil/history/his_f35.htm
• http://www.afa.org/magazine/June2005/0605striker.asp
• http://www.jsfdkteam.dk/jsf project/default.htm

Let me know if I'm wrong, and if there is some credible basis for saying the A-10 will never be replaced by the F-35. Joema 12:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not "credible" in that it's probably not citable here, but I get the distinct impression that a lot of US armed forces people, particularly the Army, don't think that replacing the A-10 with the JSF makes sense. this is typical. It may be just bar-room drivel from wannabees, but you see it around quite a lot. --Robert Merkel 13:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the F-35 will not be replacing the A-10 in the sense that it will be loitering on the battlefield lighting up tanks with its big cannon. That's what most ground guys are skeptical about. What it's come down to is that the air force doesn't anticipate the A-10 being survivable against any sort of modern air defense. Even in Iraq, it had trouble against optically guided guns. The F-35 will perform CAS the way Marine Hornets are - zoom in, drop bombs, zoom out. For loitering CAS we have helos that can at least use cover and concealment. The A-10 will be eventually retired and the F-35 will be taking over the CAS mission; it'll just handle it in a different manner. --Mmx1 14:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The above references don't say the F-35 will be replacing the A-10 by flying the same profile and using a similar weapon. They just mean the F-35 will replace the A-10 from an inventory and overall CAS mission standpoint. That's what they mean by "replace", and this article using that term seems consistent. I've seen a lot of Usenet and forum banter about the F-35 being able/unable to replace the A-10, but that's no basis for an encyclopedia article. Joema 17:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The speculation comes from that misimpression. There is such a prevalent mythos surrounding the A-10 and its cannon that it's hard to imagine any aircraft replacing it on a 1-1 basis, particularly with a different mission profile. When people hear that the JSF will replace the A-10, they imagine this little fighter scooting along, strafing tank formations, an image that doesn't betray confidence. The survivability of the A-10 is admirable, but in the end a shot up A-10 and a shot-down A-10 are both out of the fight. --Mmx1 18:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, the A-10 does have one HUGE cannon, that no other plane caries if I remember correctly. 5 rounds will apparently take out any tank (4 HE and 1 DU), and it's legendary survivability are what makes it used rather than choppers, I read an article about the failings of the Apache chopper that meant that A-10s have to be used instead.--The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 22:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Mmx1 is exactly right: the F-35 won't fly an A-10 profile but can still replace it. The A-10 is survivable because it must be: it flies low and slow. In the era before modern navigation and targeting, it made sense. But in the near future, an F-35 (or an A-10 for that matter) will be able to drop a Small Diameter Bomb that is precision guided without using a seeker: [1]. Previously the problems with GPS munitions were (1) not totally precise, and (2) not usable against moving targets. Both of those are being addressed: [2], [3]. Once you have those capabilities you don't need a low-and-slow CAS plane that identifies targets by the Mk 1 eyeball.

But all of this is just discussion, which has no credibility in an encyclopedia article. If the current Air Force and DoD statements say the F-35 will replace the A-10, then that's what we write. We're not investigative reporters looking for a scoop. We accept the official statement and that goes in the encyclopedia. It doesn't mean we're dumb or gullible, but we're working for Wikipedia, not 60 Minutes. Joema 00:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The A-10 is being upgraded to a variant that will allow it to stay in service till 2028, so I dont think the F-35 going to completely replace it. Crazyheron 11:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Major issues

This article has some major issues, including a long section of speculation ("Possible reduction to two primary variants") and several sections of jargon-laden potentially OR material ("Analysis of JSF program"). It also could stand to have its material reorganized and cleaned up, but those are the two biggest issues that need the most work. If they're not addressed, I'm going to put in for FA status removal because this article does not feel like wikipedia's best work. Night Gyr 04:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed the reduction section (the most likely subject for reduction has been the B version anyway, though I won't write anything until I have citable sources). The source for the A cancellation was speculation from some thinktank, six months ago, that's yet to materialize. I'll work on the analysis too. --Mmx1 04:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Q&A session in norwegian newspaper

Ther is a Question and Answer session mostly in english about JSF in the norwegian newspaper Dagbladet - link Svart 11:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

American Contribution

The primary customers are the armed forces of the United States (USAF, USN, and USMC) and the United Kingdom (RAF and RN). There are three levels of international participation for the eight countries contributing to the program. The United Kingdom is the sole level I partner, contributing a little over $2 billion. Level II partners are Italy and the Netherlands, contributing $1 billion and $800 million respectively. At level III are Turkey ($175 million), Australia ($144 million), Norway ($122 million), Denmark ($110 million), and Canada ($100 million)

Where in the article does it mention how much the US has invested in the project? - Hayter 12:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sequence

Is it valid to place the F-21 in the sequence section? I mean, it's not a US aircraft. Equinoxe 17:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It's part of the designation sequence since it was adopted by the US armed forces as an aggressor aircraft and thus dubbed the F-21 by them. Joffeloff 20:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Name

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is a temporary name. The official name will be given to the F-35 before the end of July. When the name has gone public, the name of this article and all the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters must be changed to the official name.

May 18, 2006 (by Jeff Hollenbeck) - Wild speculation still surrounds the official name to be given to the world's newest stealth fighter jet, but not for long. While the options are still closely guarded secrets, the F-35 should have it's official name by the end of June 2006.

--- Src: 1

Name competition for the F-35 JSF

The F-35 is scheduled to be rolled out in 2006, at which time the name of the aircraft will be announced. The name will be chosen from among the suggestions submitted by the participating countries. Aerospace Engineering's involvement in the F-35 development means that staff are invited to participate in this competition. The winning Dutch submission will be rewarded with a special JSF VIP invitation to the Royal Netherlands Air Force Open Days. Do not forget to explain why your name is the best. State your name, address and telephone number clearly in order to be eligible for the prize.

--- Src: 2

SidewinderXP2 16:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Since it has been named, where is the source? Someone please cite this in the article!--TrevelyanL85A2 00:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Predecessors

Since when has the F-35 been scheduled to replace any F/A-18 Hornet? Says so in the opening section, but at least the Navy is keeping the Super Hornet alongside the F-35C. Are the USMC going to operate just the F-35 in the future and ditch their Hornets?

F/A-18_Hornet and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet are two different aircrafts, I don't know if that answers your question? --145.94.41.95 11:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The original F/A-18 Hornet first flew in 1978. The F/A-18E/F first flew in 1995, and I think is still in production. So some F-18 models are about 30 years older than the newest ones. Therefore it's likely the oldest ones would be replaced first by the F-35, and the newer ones replaced much later. Joema 13:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense speculation about F-24

An anon keeps reinserting a mix of speculation and original research about the missing F-24 designation into the intro. I've deleted this dubious info as it lacks citation, and even if it were true, it would not belong in the intro. --Mmx1 04:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

JSF Price: $82M Per Plane

Here is a quote:

The cost of the U.S. F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program has risen to $82.1 million, enough to require the Pentagon to notify Congress, which it has done, according to Air Force officials. Surging material costs, especially for aluminum and titanium; the addition of another wing production line in Italy; and program restructuring are to blame, according to Air Force sources. The price tag for a single JSF has risen by 33 percent since 2001, when the average plane cost $61.8 million, the sources said.[4]

What about the total cost, you ask:

In a quarterly "selected acquisition report," Pentagon analysts now estimate that it will cost $276.5 billion to develop three versions of the F-35 and build about 2,400 of the planes for the Air Force, Navy and Marines. That's up from the $256 billion figure last given for the program.[5]

--DelftUser

Skipping the F-24 thru F-34 Designation

It's still unclear why the DoD [The designation "F-35" was chosen at the Department of Defense level;] skipped eleven sequential numbers. Other stealth planes? This seems an important factoid. Clues? Hints? Rumors? --Robertkeller 00:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

An idea-- maybe the DoD didn't want a series of "F" planes whose designations run concurrent with the (then) current and well-known crop of Russian MiG fighters. You would have been getting "F-27" and "F-29" in the scheme, possibly causing confusion.

The reason it was named the F-35 stems from the Concept Definition Phase; where the Boeing and Lockheed demonstrators were both assigned "X"-designations. The rationale for designating the demonstrators as [X-Planes] rather than giving them the usual Y-designation (eg. like the YF-22 and YF-16) was that the prototypes were pioneering an advanced technology, ie. an integrated vertical lift system. When the X-35 won the fly-off competition; it seemed natural to the Department of Defence to officially re-designate it as the F-35. [6] Jgarth 04:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Confusing

I added the confusing tag to the Analysis of the Program section. This section begins with one long run on sentence and I am not entiry sure where a thouhgt begins or ends. Sir hugo 14:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You ripped me off! Where's my Radio?

The F-22 is better get with the times man!

the F-22 has supercruise and stealth capabilitys whats the JSF got?? Plus the F-22 has internal weapons storage. Wheres your messiah now ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by F 22 (talk • contribs)

Sadly you have bought the F-22 "smoke and missors" campaign that wows the public with irrelevant capabilities to make you miss the obvious shortcomings such as ACTUAL RANGE instead of some heavily caveated statistic like "supersonic range"...who gives a darn if you can't get to the fight or can't stay on station when you get there?

Are you a stealth expert? Do you know the per centages of stealth "reductions?" Who choses the basis for stealth comparison for tactical relevancy? How much stealth is needed to do the job? What frequency spectrums are important? What is the reliability and maintainability of the stealth? If you can't answer these questions, then you shouldn't be making a recommendation!

The JSF is a strike aircraft and is designed to be one. The F-22's bomb-carriage and bomb-dropping capabilites pale in comparison to the JSF F-35. Try comparing relevant capabilities. Ask yourself what capability is more relevant today -- shooting down an advanced fighter or flying a long way to drop many accurate weapons?? Oh yeah...don't forget to factor in cost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.57.213 (talk • contribs)

look mate. The f 22 is the best jet/bomber fighter in the world! There is nothing that can compair to the awesome power of the raptor! Do you even know what supercruise is! I dont think you do. You are saying that being able to travel a 1.6 mach or over. with useing after burners is worthless. You say the raptor dosnt have range what about supercruise mate. why dosnt the great Jsf have it them! The jsf dosnt even exist yet and people are all ready saying its our messiah. It may be cheaper now but it will go up will the raptor goes down.

The F 22 has the ability of stealth. And yes stealth is easy to maintain mate! seven f 22s took on 35 F-15s and the F-22s didnt suffer a single loss, because of their stealth and you call stealth worthless. It is estimated that the F-22 could take 15 su-35 fighters on and win. The JSF is all talk and no action while the raptor is action!!!!!!!!!!

The F-22 has internal weapons storage how can that be bad! Also how do we know whats going to happen in the future. Who knows we might go to war with a nation with good fighters. Stop trying to predict the future, and buy the F-22 raptor!

Anyway who wants a single engine aircraft? Not me. Not even Albania! Performance

This may be true but the F-22 lacks the capability to drop gravity aided nuclear weapons, whereas the JSF can. This function will become more and more important in the future.

The F-22 cant even take off/land on a Short runway (STOL)! This function will be essential for the new carriers like the CVN-80.

No, the awesome power of the raptor is nothing compared with the awesome power of Chuck Norris. --Mmx1 17:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing this whole section is a joke? "Anyway who wants a single engine aircraft? Not me. Not even Albania!"? Eh, the United States, to the tune of 3,000 aircraft. Also purchased 1 or 2 F-16s!!! Keep your feet on the ground folks. Mark83 19:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

F-22

Maximum speed: >Mach 2.42, 1,600 mph (2570 km/h) at high altitude Cruise speed: >Mach 1.72, 1,140 mph (1830 km/h) at high altitude Range: ferry 2,000 mi (3200 km) Service ceiling: >50,000 ft USAF, 60,000 ft Boeing (>15 000 m, 18 000 m) Rate of climb: ft/min[3] (m/s) Wing loading: 96 lb/ft² (470 kg/m²) Thrust/weight: 1.3~1.41 Maximum g-load: 9.5 g

JSF

Performance Maximum speed: Mach 1.6 (1,200 mph, 2000 km/h) Cruise speed: Mach (mph, km/h) Range: 620 miles (1000 km) Service ceiling: 48,000 ft (15 000 m) Rate of climb: 40,000 ft/min[15] (200 m/s) Wing loading: 91.4 lb/ft² (446 kg/m²) Thrust/weight: 0.88

in your face JSF viva F-22

This may be true but the F-22 lacks the capability to drop gravity aided nuclear weapons, whereas the JSF can.

Look, you just cant compair the Two, the F-22 is an inteceptor/ figther aircraft and the F-35 is a multirole aircraft. Anyway, a dragon is better than them both. And my messiah is in a turtel. DAMN YOU LEGESLATIVE ASSEMBLY!

Dfrg.msc 07:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we get some information on which nuclear weapons the F-35 can carry? I'd assume the B-61, but can it also carry the much more important B83? This is getting to be a pretty important matter as of late.Monty2 01:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Naming

On 7 July 2006, the Air Force announced the official name of the JSF as the Lightning II. As such, I have taken the liberty of moving the page and adding a little bit of information about the naming. (Personally, I wish they had gone with Phoenix or Kestrel.) Sertrel 17:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've changed a few redirects and some articles into the new name. Joffeloff 17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Kestrel had already been used on the Hawker Siddeley Kestrel, the evaluation prototypes of the Harrier, so it would have been Kestrel II. GraemeLeggett 09:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems the F-22 Raptor's prototypes (YF-22) also carried the preliminary name "Lightning II". I edited that article the other day. --Charles Gaudette 18:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The way it reads now, it almost sounds like the U.S. Air Force decided the name "Lightning II". Anyone have a reference to the body (perhaps the U.S. Department of Defense) that actually did the act of naming the aircraft? --Charles Gaudette 06:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the wording to show that the USAF announced the name (not named it) and added a link to the official press release.Sir hugo 13:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Just read the release - rather overblown. Rather overlooked the EEL's poor fuel record too, but that wouldn't have looked good in a release. GraemeLeggett 13:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the P-38 Lightning article, it seems that "Lightning II" was actually the British name of a P-38 variant; so technically, wouldn't that mean that it should be the "Lightning II" in the US and "Lightning III" on the other side of the pond? (Then again, they had their own separate English Electric Lightning, with no numeration, so maybe not. Sertrel 17:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No. I suspect that the F-35 will be initially referred to as the 'Lightning FGR.1' or something similar in British service. Subsequent revisions will be FGR.2, FGR.3, etc. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

FGR? Sertrel 19:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Fighter-Ground (attack)-Reconnaissance. GraemeLeggett 20:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The P-38 article was incorrect. The non-turbo version of the P-322 was known as the Lightning Mk.I, and the turbo version was the Lightning Mk.II-- not "Lightning I" and "Lightning II".

Excellent in-depth review of JSF in Flight International

The latest edition of Flight International contains an excellent write-up of the current status of the JSF program; and contains a high-resolution threeview drawing of all three variants: http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/06/28/207482/First+strike+Flight+International+JSF+special.html When someone gets the time, it would be worth updating this article to incorporate information from the Flight article; including advanced manufacturing processes; global participation; flight test plans, etc. Jgarth 04:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, The Star Telegram has published a good summary timeline and poster chart. This is probably worth incorporating as a reference: http://www.dfw.com/multimedia/dfw/JSFposterweb.pdf Jgarth 16:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Transportation of parts

BAE are building large sections of every plane in the UK and then shipping them to Lockheed for assembly. Does anyone know how? Are they put in containers or flown? Mark83 18:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thunderbird F-35's?

Because the USAF is replacing the F-16 Fighting Falcon/Viper with the F-35 will the USAF also swap out the current Thunderbird F-16's with new F-35's?

The F-16s they have now were acquired 4 years after the jet was introduced. And the Blue Angels didn't get their Hornets until 3 years after its production. Based on that, I don't think it'll be immediate. And you also have to consider if the F-35 is the aircraft they want when it comes time to replace their Falcons. There could be another aircraft around in the future. 205.174.22.28 04:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

-Future manned fighter-types are going to be few and far between. Since large fighters like the F-22 are not suited to Thunderbirds duty, the Lightning II (or perhaps a low-cost trainer) is it.

USA Contribution?

Reading through the initial portions of the article (regarding contributions from various countries) I was left somewhat confused. It says that the UK is the only tier 1 partner, contributing 2 billion etc. No mention here of the USA or the USA's contribution, unless that's the partner that they are referring to (as opposed to the other partners (ie countries)). I can't believe they haven't contributed anything towards it, and yet no figure is mentioned that I can find. T h e M a v e r i c k 06:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you could say that it is implicit that any responsibilities or workshare not mentioned are that of the U.S., since they are obviously the coordinating nation. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that one could, but I have to wonder if that's a dangerous thing in an encyclopaedia? I'm sure that most within the USA would probably assume that the USA's involvement (as designers and manufacturers) was "a given", but the USA's financial contribution wasn't (and isn't) as obvious to little old me waaaay down here in the South Pacific. I've now read the article and watched a wonderful 2 part discovery channel program on it - and I'm still none the wiser about this point. T h e M a v e r i c k 06:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering that the US is doing the majority of the funding, it makes no sense that the article does not explain how much that funding is, especially when the article does detail how much the other countries are contributing to funding. The article needs information about how much the US is spending. —Lowellian (reply) 09:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

I'm not a grammar wizz (so I haven't made any changes), but personally I think that the opening sentence would read better if it were along the lines of ... "The F-35 Lightning II, called the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) during development, is a ..." as opposed to the current "The F-35 Lightning II, called in development the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), is a ..."

T h e M a v e r i c k 06:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Censorship of russian connection

The words "Russia" or "USSR" or "Soviet Union" or "Yakovlev" do not appear in this article, even though the Yak-41 was the basis of the F-35 design. Whole airframe mock-ups, swivel-pipe engines, all the blueprints were bought from Russia for 300mio USD. Without the russkies the F-35 would not nearly look this way or work this way. It is very biased to omit mention of the crucial ex-soviet know-how from this article. The Boeing X-32 MantaRay was genuine american technology, the F-35 is not. 195.70.32.136 06:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That tripe has shown up and been expunged before. It's not censorship because we're not governmental here. It's not bias if it's not deliberate, but I am skeptical of your claims. You need to provide a source. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There might be more to this than first meets the eye. I did a quick google - take a look at http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/russia/yakovlev/yak-41/yak-41.htm. No mention of the Yak-41 being "the basis of the F-35 design", but it is acknowleged that Yakovlev were involved. T h e M a v e r i c k 07:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Some substantiation may be found here (at least):

Morrocco, John D., "Lockheed Martin taps Yakovlev for STOVL skills", Aviation Week & Space Technology 1995, v142n25, Jun 19, p. 74-77.

Lockheed Martin is turning to Russia's Yakovlev Design Bureau for help in designing short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft for the US Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) competition.

Wikipedia shouldn't be judging whether or not the technology contribution was important (that's original research). It should be reporting what is known and citing sources. It's quite clear that there was a huge 1990s rush to license Russian technology[7]; this isn't remarkable.--Dhartung | Talk 17:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Further confirmation:

"At the rear of the plane is a three-bearing swivel duct that deflects exhaust from the F119 engine downward to support the tail of the aircraft. The design of this duct was inspired by the Russian YAK-141 STOVL plane, [Lockheed-Martin's Charles "Tom"] Burbage says." [8] Aerospace America, 2001

From the horse's mouth, as it were. --Dhartung | Talk 19:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That has already been addressed. The claim that the airframe and core design was lifted from Yakovlev is as yet unsubstantiated.

Pop culture

Would it be appropiate to say in the article it makes an apperance in Battlfield 2 and a few other video games? --DragonWR12LB 09:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

KC-135 "only use the flying boom" statement in error?

I believe the statement "... sacrificing compatibility with Air Force KC-135 Stratotankers, which only use the flying boom in-flight refueling system..." is in error. I was a flier in the USAF from 1989-1996 at bases where KC-135s were stationed and know that the KC-135 could use a non-retractable drogue attachment that went on the end of the boom. Thus, it was kind of a "drogue via boom" setup. The attachment was, of course, not interchangeable in flight and its length required a stand to support it when the aircraft was parked. Is this system no longer in use?

'The Fighter jet'?

'Known as the Fighter jet'? What the hell? Where did you get that from? --Joffeloff 13:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is "featured article"-day. Please bare with us as silly interested people mischievously freely edit the article. --Charles Gaudette 20:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)