Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 27 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 10:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 04:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

First Combat

The F-35 might have had its first combat... Does anyone have access to the original Georges Malbrunot article in Le Figaro?

see: http://www.airforcesmonthly.com/2017/03/07/have-israels-new-f-35s-seen-combat/ & https://sofrep.com/80147/israels-f-35s-may-already-flown-combat-mission-russian-air-defenses-syria/ (I linked the second one as well as it includes a possibly quotable bit about Israel now having 5 F-35s)

(note: I won't be watching this page but will check back in) Gecko G (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It would seem to be sourced well enough for a brief section outlining the claims from French intelligence. Alleged first combat use or similar for a title? Irondome (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

RAF Plans To Purchase 80 F-35A's

I have updated the F-35A and F-35B sections accordingly [1], regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.152.116 (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes, as it is just a plan at this point. - BilCat (talk)
That action seems unusual, most of the 'operators' section is from 'planned' proposals. I cannot see any reason not to undue your revert and then edit as the order firms up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.152.116 (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
It's just how it's always been done. (I'm sure a more experienced editor can track down the actual policy on it). Information isn't added to articles unless it is confirmed happening i.e. the contract has been signed.
Just because the RAF wants and Minister of Defence wants something doesn't guarantee it will happen / there is a budget to do so. The same happens for upcoming movies & series' / other general rumors / unfinalised actions. Planned operators means exactly that, not proposed operators i.e. it's all signed off and just awaiting delivery for them to become "Operators" — IVORK Discuss 07:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/raf-set-to-scale-back-on-supersonic-f-35bs-jets-for-royal-navy-aircraft-carriers-5wm0nzfmx
I've removed it from the operator's section and shifted it to the F-35 A but as said it is a rumour.Ajaxrocks (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 09:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Article size

see: Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II/Archive 5#Article size

Back in 2010 TGCP stated that this article was too large. IT was then 110k in size. It is now about 350k of which the body of the text is about 140k. This is way too large. The recommended size for an article is no more than about a quarter of that.

The editing guideline "Article size" suggests ways that this can be reduced. -- PBS (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a problem, because the "main" article is a poor summary of the development section. So one way to reduce the size of the article would be to create an article called "Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II: development" or "Development of the Martin F-35 Lightning II", and cut and past the section "development" into it. Then write a 3 paragraph lead to the new article and include that lead as the summary in this article.

It will be inevitable that some editors will add more information to the development section in this article. That can then be moved to the the new article unless it is a change to the lead in the new article in which case it can kept in this article.

-- PBS (talk) 07:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The Development section is a prime candidate for being broken out into Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II development (to match existing procurement article) as PBS describes. I fully support that. Operational history is somewhat list- or timeline-like and could be moved to a separate Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II operational history article as well. The Procurement costs table could be moved to the main Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement. The Design section is a bit long but I think it is more directly relevant to an article on the plane than the details of development, operational history and procurement. I had actually been thinking of doing something with the Development section just the other day so this is a good opportunity to build some consensus on how to handle it. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I would also agree, now that F35 is (finally) entering production, the development section is no longer the main topic of interest on this page. Regarding operational history. I think most of that section would also fit better in the (to be created) Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II development article as most of it is about testing, training and planning, which is a relevant "operational" part of the development of the fighter, but not as much for the operational use of the finished product. Arnoutf (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that was a job well done by DIYeditor. However the article is still much larger than the guidelines suggest (edit size of 236k). I think that the next obvious section to tackle is "Design" as the article now looks odd with a summary for two of the section and such a large section on "Design". If that were to be done in a similar way (cut and past a 2k summary) then it would reduce the article size by about 80k. -- PBS (talk) 08:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

F-35 article titles

Per the above discussion I broke out the Development section into a new article, "Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II development" with a brief lede as a starting point. Usernamekiran has raised the issue of whether the title is appropriate. I think maybe "Development of the Martin F-35 Lightning II" as (one of two) originally proposed by PBS may be the title most consistent with Wikipedia conventions but that leaves the question of whether "Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement" should also be renamed. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it makes them easier to find via search if all start with "Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II ...". - Ahunt (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Search justification is marginal, however the lead into the new article "Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II development started in 1992 with the origins..." seems as natural as "Development of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II started in 1992 with the origins...", and so full fills the requirements of WP:AT.
BTW The whole issue of the names for subsiduary articles is slightly confused in the AT policy, because it used to be that any name with a forward slash in it created a new subpage (as it still does in most name spaces) and this was seen as undesirable (See for example AC/DC it is not a subpage, but the talk page Talk:AC/DC is a sub page of Talk:AC (see the link at the top to of Talk:AC/DC). So avoiding creating subpages (although it was possible) was the major initial reason for the prohibition, that has remained in place even though it is no longer possible to do so. The example given on the talk page with brackets would be a bad idea even without this prohibition, because it looks like disambiguation which it is not. -- PBS (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 21:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 01:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Image of three types of F-35; abbreviations not explained

Two of the abbreviations are quite a search in the article. The third, CV, isn't explained at all. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 19:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It took me a while to figure out which image you were talking about, since you didn't state what section it was in, or link/post the image. "CV" is USN Hull classification symbol for "aircraft carrier", hence this is the F-35C CATOBAR variant. I'm not sure how best to make that clear in the article without shoehorning it somewhere or being too pedantic. - BilCat (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Text in the Development sections says "F-35C (carrier-based CATOBAR, CV)" already. This could be read carrier or CATOBAR variant. Same basic meaning either way. -Finlayson (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
It currently looks like an unexplained abbreviation. I'd propose adding bilcat's explanation that it's a hull classification symbol.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 22:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks to BilCat for the explanation. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 12:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Someone reverted the edits i did. I think they were in line with the discussion above. Did i misinterpreted what we discussed? PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 10:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 15:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Sensor Fusion or Cold Fusion

From the article: "sensor fusion boosts engine thrust and oil efficiency, increasing the aircraft's range". Really??? 107.77.204.116 (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

There are lots of individual temperature sensors inside the engine, their data is 'fused' then used by engine management software to optimise performance. WatcherZero (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

crash in SC

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/military-plane-crash-beaufort-county-south-carolina-live-updates-2018-09-28/ A gf of mine saw the smoke from the crash and heard the "boom." 104.169.41.8 (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Well I hope she is well clear of the smoke plume, it is toxic. - Ahunt (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
They had about one-thousand firefighters and LEO's around the scene blocking it off.  :-) 104.169.41.8 (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

More on the Green Glow

https://www.military.com/defensetech/2018/08/28/f-35-helmet-bug-means-only-expert-pilots-can-do-night-carrier-landings.html

How much detail is needed on this problem that has a fix in the works? Hcobb (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

What "enemies" is the F-35 dogfighting?

I've seen a multitude of claims the F-35 has been used in dogfights against 'enemies', by both the press and President Trump. However, there doesn't seem to be any foreign power the US is currently involved in operations against that are practically capable of mounting any aerial defense. If there is such activity going on, shouldn't it be in the operations section of this article? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Update on current U.K. numbers (48) and Potential Purchase of F35A

The current number of F-35B’s is 48 with a potential purchase of 90 F-35A’s which would be a considerable re-evaluation of current U.K. tactical doctrine, perhaps to account for recent geopolitical realities on the ground? source: [1]

There is no definite update. It just envisions but there's no order for a split buy officially. Sammartinlai (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, should have read ‘potential’.Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "U.K. To Decide Lightning II variant at SDSR, To Deploy STOVL F-35B 'Off Strip' ". Janes. 14 November 2018. Retrieved 19 November 2018.

Low Production Rate and Extremely High Cost

I believe there should be a section on the very high and controversial fly-away unit cost of this aircraft, as well as its slow production rate per year. At current rates, on average, the total number of F-35s built per year is 26. That is a VERY low / slow rate of production. This is the most expensive plane ever built, and the controversy that surrounds that fact deserves some room in this article if it is to have any credibility at all. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The only reason it is there is the lack of references that deal with low production rate and the high costs together. If we can find refs that deal with both aspects of that, then it can be put in. One note on WP:SYNTHESIS though, as that link explains, we can't take refs that deal with the pricing and other refs that deal with the production rate and combine them to calculate our own data or draw our own conclusions. - Ahunt (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Empennage

Description empennage please.--Connection (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Empennage doesnt seem to appear in the article, where did you see it. MilborneOne (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest... Exactly, it doesnt. I am suggesting to the editors of the article that the description of empennage of that aircraft would be added in its proper terminology. Cheers--Connection (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Japan approves 105 more Lighnings

Source here. Sario528 (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

That source says Japan's government has approved ordering more F-35s. A contract or other agreement has to be approved/signed for it to be a completed order. I'm not saying this won't happen, just that this isn't done yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Good point. We'll wait for the contracts to get signed before updating then. Sario528 (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

No Brimstone is and will not be integrated with F-35

This evidence [1] is about SPEAR 3, not Brimstone. SPEAR 3 is different from Brimstone. Brimstone will not be integrated with F-35. See [2].

BlueD954 (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Link question

After 2 minutes, in the lede; LL "air-superiority" has zero info on air-superiority. Very unprofessional and frustrating. Guessing therefore, there are plenty more lazy links? Suggest reviews and repair(s).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:5DF8:B150:A31E:43B8 (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, you seem to be complaining about the article aerial warfare. So you should use comment on that article's talk page (Talk:Aerial warfare) instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I have changed the link in this article to point to Air superiority fighter. Better? - Ahunt (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

F-35As at Al Dhafra April 2019

Some good free-use photos of F-35As deployed to Al Dhafra Air Base here: [3] Mztourist (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

New EOTS picture

I think the picture below is better for showing the EOTS, as the current one in the article is a mere mockup.

EOTS mounted under the aircraft's "chin"

Steve7c8 (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Procurement section opening sentence

See the discussion that I started with @BilCat: on his user page, but please comment here. @Fnlayson: notes that the article Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement lists the levels of participation, and shows that the U.S. is primary while the UK is the only "level 1" partner. The sentence, as it is currently written, makes no grammatical sense (or, at least, it is a great example of ambiguity). So, I think the sentence should read something like this: "While the United States is the primary customer and financial backer—along with the United Kingdom as the sole "level 1" partner—Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway, and Denmark have agreed to contribute US$4.375 billion . . . ." OR, since it is clear that the U.S. is the ONLY "primary" customer, the sentence can simply be written the way that I originally edited it: "While the United States is the primary customer and financial backer, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway, and Denmark have agreed to contribute US$4.375 billion . . . ." That sentence doesn't elevate any of the other countries above the others, and it is accurate in that the U.S. is the only "primary" customer. I think if we try to distinguish the different levels of participation here, we're going to end up with a really awkward sentence that isn't necessary for the immediate context and is already covered elsewhere. To leave it as is, the only grammatically sound reading states that the UK is a primary customer and financial backer along with the U.S., which is not true. Thoughts? Thanks. Holy (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Those cost amounts are several years old and probably obsolete now. I've removed them from this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Removed VFA-101

As it is deactivated.

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/navy-f-35-squadron-is-deactivated-at-eglin-afb-1.582746

BlueD954 (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, added it back in as this is an encyclopedia so doesnt need to be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

"Accidents and notable incidents": Section length

Greetings. Fellow editor Fnlayson placed a tag about the section being "too long and excessively detailed". The article is a nearly 170,000 words long, if we include spaces in the count. The section takes up less than 4,000 words, incl. spaces. That's about 2 percent of the total article - and it's about an evidently very important aspect of the article's subject, i.e. the empirical record of the aircraft causing trouble. I'd say that the section is both appropriately long (it certainly could be longer!) and the text quite adequately sourced (some eighteen distinct sources). How about we remove the tag, then? Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

These accident entries are very long for military aircraft accidents. Review other fighter or other military aircraft articles for comparison. For long accident entries, I suggest either split off to a stand along article or summarize the text more. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Again, how can we assess the information on accidents as being "very long" when it takes up some 1-2 percent of total wording? This is not logical. If anything, the article gives so much space to items such as its design and production history, its variants, its customers, its mechanism, and so on, that the proper reaction here would be to condense the article itself, since it is both overly long for the non-specialist user and reads like a Lockheed Martin brochure, or the work of aviation fans. The section on accidents and incidents has actually been quite restrained so far, when we take into account what's out there on the F-35. I hope we reach an agreement about it. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources akimbo

Some sources are provided simply with a description and without a URL, such as citing an article supposedly titled "Vertiflight" from the January 2004 issue of Journal of the American Helicopter Society. However, no such article seems to exist in the respective issue as recorded on the journal's online, past-issues archive. What gives? -The Gnome (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Invalid source? Delete the material. 50.111.58.24 (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd be careful about deleting something just because it isn't in the online contents listing - some content (editorials, regular short columns, news sections) may not be listed in the contents even though it exists (especially stuff in print editions - not everything in some print magazines will end up in the web type online archive of articles.)Nigel Ish (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Also note that the American Helicopter Society also publishes a magazine called Vertiflite, which may also be a source of confusion.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

VJ101

re [4]

In what possible way doe the F-35 resemble the VJ101??

This should all go. It's nonsense. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Weaponry listed in infobox

Is it really appropriate to list all those different missiles and bombs under the heading "F-35A"? It includes British and US weapons, at least, but "F-35A" is technically just a USAF plane, isn't it? The RAF isn't going to call them "F-35A" are they? Even if they are basically the same aircraft, there won't be any planes known as an "F-35A" carry British missiles (unless the US is actually buying British munitions now?). It's like how the AV-8B and the Harrier GR.4 are fundamentally the same plane, but the GR.4 carries UK weapons and the AV-8B uses US weapons. I understand that generically that "F-35A" is the term used to cover all CTOL variants generally, but it's not accurate. Come to think of it, the RAF isn't even buying the F-35A version, are they? Aren't they getting all B versions for their small carriers? Maybe I'm wrong, but AFAIK the infobox lists ONLY the performace, specs and weapons carried by the exact type listed at the top of the box. If there is a difference between the weapons carried by A and B and C versions, they should be listed seperately, and their equivalent non-US designations should be added to each category when non-US weapons are listed as carried. Or a different list for each nation's plane and a separate list of muntions for each. But that sounds like a bad idea. I.e. make a list for the F-35C, with only the Navy and Joint weapons listed on it. If any other nation is using the F-35C (I doubt it), add their designation in paranthesis, and add their specific munitions to that list. For the F-35A, list all the USAF and Joint munitions. If you want to add the British, and other weapons, add their designation in parenthssis - or just say "and equivalents"? (I don't like that, because it's not clear that no plane is likely to carry ALL of these loads, even if they are each able to take every weapomn without any modification or software changes (which I doubt - more likely British F-35s will be designed and programmed to carry British weapons as well as whatever US weapons they buy to go with them, but USAF versions probably won't be able to use British missiles as purchased. One could just specificy "full list, all variants, all nationalities" over the weapons section, but it wouldn't be in line with how other articles are done.

Idumea47b (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Only weapons related to the described variant should be listed, major changes for other variants can be discussed in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Wing lengths

This makes it sound as if the C wing was a superior wing, and is "more efficient", while the "unusually short span" (is it? Compared to what?) of the other two is "due to the need to fit into the Marines parking spaces aboard ship". This doesn't make any sense. The USAF had no reason to adopt a trade-off short wing if the longer wing was better in general. They would have made the A and C as long-wing version, and just made the B model as the single version with the "inferior" short wing, since that's the only one that needs to fit onto Marine carriers. It would appear to me that the USAF WANTED the shorter wingspan. The story that I heard is that the USN was forced to use a LONGER than ideal wing in order to keep landing and takeoff speeds down. As a side effect, there is more space for fuel and the wing is "more efficient" - read, at subsonic speeds it uses less fuel, doesn't need as much AOA to generate lift, and generally "flies' better. But the tradeoff is increased drag from a greater frontal area, greater "wetted area", which reduces TOP speed (especially at lower altitudes), slower roll rate and roll acceleration, higher weight (due to more material and because you need to strengthen the root to deal with increaed load due to a longer lever acting on it). This means that the USN has a slightly slower plane with a slower, more cojntrollable takeoff and landing and more economical cruise performance (and perhaps better manueverability at high altitude), while the USAF has a plane with a higher top speed and better role rate, but one that is marginally less efficient in subsonoc cruise. There is a reason they like small wings on fast jets. Bigger isn't always better (and it isn't always worse). Akthough I don't even see where they get that the wing is "short" from. It's not a LONG wing, but it's not much different from an F-16. In exchange it has a wider chord. Compare the wing loading, that's the important thing. Probably they mean in relation to the Euro-canards, whith tend to use great big deltas, with all their attendent benefits and drawbacks. In any case, if the short wing IS an "inferior" wing, you still need a better reason why the USAF chose to use it when it could have easily asked for the same wing as the Navy version.


Idumea47b (talk) 07:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Update to expected delivery

Probably to be updated:

"Turkey will buy four F-35s to be delivered in 2015 and 2016"

--Mortense (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is bloated beyond belief...

For an encyclopedia article, this article makes my eyes hurt with how much unnecessary detail and irrelevant information is packed in here. Not every single test event or problem that occurs during testing need to be included. Not every concern or criticism from a journalist need to be added. This article can frankly be trimmed down by at least a third, but I don't even know where to start. Should I check out the article in the near future to do some pruning, or does this have to be a group effort? Not gonna lie, this is a daunting task. Steve7c8 (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, but it is probably time for this now with hundreds in service. It really needs to be a group effort with multiple passes through by several editors and discussion of anything "marginal", as some expertise is needed to determine what is important and what is just pure bloat. Feel free to get started with a first pass, though, if you feel able. - Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Srongly disagree with this, because, firstly, the process of pruning is very likely to result in a promotional article, considering which parts you mention while talking about redundancy (criticisms, program failures), and secondly, I don't quite understand since when completeness of an article has become unwelcome in an encyclopedia. It's even possible to argue it has to be there by definition of the latter: "a book or set of books containing many articles arranged in alphabetical order that deal either with the whole of human knowledge or with a particular part of it". -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Please see WP:Article size. This article is currently 288 kB. WP:TOOBIG says "> 100 kB - Almost certainly should be divided". - Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Guidelines' requirement for splitting is another matter: splitting ≠ pruning. Also, let's not forget about this: "As browsers have improved, there is no need for haste in splitting an article when it starts getting large. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage". -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has suggested cutting out useful information or introducing bias into it, but it has been noted before that it has too much of "first time a foo air force dropped a practice X-bomb" sort of stuff. - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I am afraid, it has been suggested: pruning the testing problems (even partially), F-35 critique, as well as the timelines of weapon integration is exactly "cutting out useful information". Besides, I think we should all remember this is the most expensive and the most complex aviation program in history, so having a little bit of "extra text" in the article doesn't seem that unjustified. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Removing or shortening intermediate details and summarizing is preferable to just removing. The bloat in this article is more than just some extra though. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
If the problem can be solved through sheer rewording, that's great. However, removing stuff is a big no-no in my opinion - there's simply nothing to be removed without causing damage to the article. One way around it could be creating separate articles out of the "Accidents" and "Criticism" sections - it would at least shorten it a little. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
An encyclopedia article is not a blog, nor is it a collection of news articles. It's pointless to point out every testing event, or every problem that is identified and then resolved through a routine development process. Considering the relative transparency of the press as well as the ease of publication, including so much details from routine testing and troubleshooting is not productive or make for an appropriately informative encyclopedia article. There is also a matter of due and undue weight; with how prominent this program is, it's much easier to scrutinize compared to programs with less prominence, such as the F-22, Gripen, or programs with far less transparency, such as the J-20 or Su-57. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, it just so happens that the only way of cunstructing a Wikipedia article on a military topic without digging into the classified domain (which is impossible for obvious reasons) is citing the news websites or OSINT sources, so having the news references all aroud there is inevitable. And when it comes to "pointlessness" of a particular fact, it sure may seem pointless to you, however, it may turn out to be of extreme importance for someone else's analysis, and especially when it comes to testing, fixes, different kinds of failures, etc. So, I would avoid these value judgements alltogether. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
It was in our much earlier discussions that we discussed exactly that point, that we were including tons of material that, in the period of the aircraft's early development, we couldn't tell what might turn out to be significant and what was essentially going to turn out to be pointless trivia. We accepted that at the time, knowing we could trim it out later. It is here, many years later, with 400 aircraft built and already been used operationally, that we can start to cull out the text that has turned out to be not significant. - Ahunt (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Just for the sake of example, what exactly in the article would you classify as "turned out to be pointless"? -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Just one little tiny example, picked at random that can be removed now, because it turned out to be not significant: "On 9 March 2011, all F-35s were grounded after a dual generator failure and oil leak in flight; the incident was discovered to have been caused by faulty maintenance." - Ahunt (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
If this is the type of stuff you suggest removing from the article, I can only repeat the following: "it sure may seem pointless to you, however, it may turn out to be of extreme importance for someone else's analysis". To elaborate on that, imagine there's someone working on a paper or article about the Lockheed's ALIS, and what this person needs are as many facts as possible about the system being unable to help maintaining the fleet. Needless to say that what you've presented as "pointless" could turn out to be quite helpful in that particular case. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
An encyclopedia article is a summary of knowledge, not a deep dive. Summarizing is a key aspect of a good article; it is not the role of an encyclopedia to cover these minute details that might be useful for someone's research. This is slippery slope reasoning here. I work as an engineer in the aerospace sector, and I only use encyclopedia articles to obtain a cursory understanding to get started, and any further details would be obtained through professional publications or other in-depth means. Steve7c8 (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
The reasoning is quite straightforward, contrary to the value judgements about "pointlessness", "irrelevancy" or "insignificance" of some facts in the article, arguments from authority of the "someome is working in the industry" type and belles lettres about what an encyclopedia should or should not be. I say if there's a chance some properly sourced and logically coherent part of an article could be useful to somebody, it should not be removed, and some other way of shortening an article should be sought out - whether it is restructuring, rewording or something else. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
You are not understanding what an encyclopedia is here. Wikipedia articles give a summary overview of subjects for general, "lay" readership. They are not technical articles aimed at engineers, quality assurance managers or test pilots. See WP:NOT. By your stated standard text can only be added and nothing ever removed. - Ahunt (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what made you think I see "engineers" or "test pilots" as Wikipedia target audience, as well as why you think I oppose deleting things in general. Quite the contrary. However, I am able to draw a clear distinction between the objective reasons for deletion and the subjective ones: if we are talking about some line of text or a paragraph presenting improperly sourced, badly translated/worded or outdated material, then, obviously, deletion of those is fully justified. Your example, however, does not fall under any of these categories, and the only justification behind the proposed deletion of it is "pointlessness", which is purely subjective and, moreover, has been shown as ungrounded by the "ALIS" counter-example. And, by the way, I don't think the richness of content on Wikipedia must be adjusted according to the editors' opinion on what layer of society is consuming it - we just have do our best at keeping the text valid and readable. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you can indicate what you think can be consolidated or removed from the article, or at least an example? - Ahunt (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, I don't think there's anything to remove without damaging the article. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay, noted then that you think the article is fine as it is. We so far have three editors who think it needs consolidating. Let's see if any other editors watching this page would like to offer any opinions to support either position. - Ahunt (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
"Richness" of content by adding and keeping all these news entries about routine test events, troubleshooting, problems, and resolutions, is exactly what's making this article unreadable as an encyclopedia article. It then becomes a messy catalogue of events, which is not what an encyclopedia is, and there are tools and sites other than an encyclopedia article if your wish is to have such a catalogue. That "ALIS" argument is an argument by hypothetical anecdote, i.e. anecdotal fallacy. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
One major point is to make the article cover the subject as if it was started fresh, knowing what we now know about the subject, and with the best available sources now available, rather than as currently, covering the subject as an accumulation of news articles. The aircraft has been in testing and service for long enough that we should be able to judge what events, milestones and problems have some lasting importance and what were of only passing importance. A better focus on what is important should make the article clearer to the reader, and avoid submerging them in a long list of semi-random and contradictory events (for example, we say both that the aircraft is impossibly loud and that noise isn't a problem - we talk about problems about jet wash damage on carrier decks, while hinting that a solution may be found, when the aircraft is operational from carrier decks, so the problem must have been solved). The article, like most associated with recent combat aircraft, needs continual review to keep the article balanced.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
This article is completely out of proportion in terms in comparison to practically any other aircraft article on Wikipedia. Way too much attention is paid to every passing comment in the media, to a level that simply is not practiced anywhere else. I know that this observation can be written off by some via WP:OTHERSTUFF; but, in my opinion, this just is not balanced. so many media reports, often voicing opinions from insignificant individuals, uninvolved agencies, or plain anonymous/sourceless speculation, has been included. In over ten years of editing, this has the largest volume of extreme minutia included in any aircraft article I have worked on. It's to the point where I can barely work on it as it is that vast, and believe me I have tried pruning it. I wish that many other articles could get just 5% of the detail (and in many cases it is there, just nobody cares) that this does. Its public prominence has driven extreme coverage, and it is in no way balanced or encyclopedic, nor has it been for many years. Kyteto (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
The consensus appears to overwhelmingly favor pruning the article. I might start in the near future. Since this article is so large, I might have to tackle it section by section, then post the revised section in the talk page for review, before placing it into the article. Steve7c8 (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I have decided to make an effort to cut the bloat of just one section down: Variants. In case anyone wishes to understand where I am coming from on this, examine the equivalent variants section of the following articles: B-1 Lancer, Sea King, 37 Viggen - each of these have brief entries on the designation, and a brief and small number of sentences on its unique aspects. The variants section here is, in my opinion, bonkers. Its does just define the features of the variant, it goes into testing events and dates (overlapping with the Testing section that already exists), into individual nations potential procurement choices (overlapping with the multiple Procurement articles and section that already exists), into squadron formation and combat details (overlapping with the Operational history section that already exists). In short, most of the detail is repeating that of other sections. That's part of what makes this article so difficult to reform, such insane levels of overlap are present. I am going to strip the variants section here to get rid of the duplication, modelling it on those three example articles I've given, as this convention is what is commonly practiced. Wish me luck. Kyteto (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Good luck! - Ahunt (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Some of this content is/was repeated and some is just out of place under Variants. Keep up the good work! -Fnlayson (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I'm stopping there for now. I've never pulled such a large amount of material out of an article; I tried to keep it disciplined in focus. No doubt this is going to be controversial and panned by some editors; and I fully acknowledge that what I have done is not perfect, and is a drastic step. I expect restoration efforts, some of which may well be justified - we should work with such parties towards consensus, and to get what good content I have taken out in haste put back in the right section e.g. testing info in testing, procurement in procurement ect. If we can enforce discipline with Variants, if no other section, then we can at least begin to bring some level of proportionate scope to an area of the article. In my opinion, of course. Kyteto (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
That's some good work. Come this weekend I'll take my stab at pruning and consolidating this article. My efforts will be a bit more drastic, which is why I want to go section by section and pass them for review before committing my changes. I'll leave the Variants section to you, as I'll be attempting to fix the Development and Design section. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Kyteto, can you please give me a heads up when you're finished with your edits so that I can start my own tuning? I don't want to get into messy editing conflicts. Steve7c8 (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm pretty much done now to be honest. Go for it, in my opinion; I'll hang back for a while. Kyteto (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Below is what I have for the Development section. I'm surprised the article dedicated to F-35 development doesn't have a lot of this information, and frankly that article contains just as much bloat as this one. I've also written a revised Design overview section. Steve7c8 (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
It appears that some editors don't like seeing my "drafts" here in the talk page, so I've been using my sandbox page. It does make the talk page itself bloated and hard to read, so I suppose that's fair. In any case, I've made extensive changes to the Design section; please review Sensors and avionics, Stealth and signatures, and Engine sections. Steve7c8 (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

please give a citation for max speed of F-35B and F-35C

Information icon Hello, I'm Ahunt. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Ahunt (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you give a source for 1.6 mach maximum speed? please respect others opinions.--2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:D8A5:8C4A:D913:DC56 (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah they are cited right there in the table you are trying to change. You can't claim you need a ref when there already is a valid ref. If you want to dispute this then take it to the talk page, or else you will get blocked for vandalizing the article. You can also note that the article has now been protected so you can no longer edit it. - Ahunt (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
valid ref? are you serious? Sources from 2011 are not creditable. --2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:D8A5:8C4A:D913:DC56 (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
They are from official sources. If you want to claim they are wrong you will need to produce some credible sources that show they are wrong. You keep adding, "Many sources says the F35-C can't fly over 30 seconds at Mach 1.4. It will be hard to fly until mach 1.6" etc, so it is time for your to produce those sources. - Ahunt (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry i don't need to give citation to demand citation. My comment is not in the encyclopedic space. --2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:D8A5:8C4A:D913:DC56 (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
As Ahunt says, it's already cited - in addition, see [5] and [6]. In addition, you are demanding that the information be changed - which does require a wp:RS.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
For this planes, citations from 2015 are so better than citations from 2011. In my opinion, Lockeed Martin is not official source (A company is not a gouvernement). It seems to be commercial propaganda. Specialised press prefer talking to US army [7]--2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:D8A5:8C4A:D913:DC56 (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
It is a WP:RS from the manufacturer, from flight test results. Unless you can produce a ref that shows this is wrong, we are done here. - Ahunt (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but in 2015 many fly tests are not done. --2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:D8A5:8C4A:D913:DC56 (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The FY2019 DOT&E report makes no mention of Mach 1.3 or 1.4 limits on F-35B and F-35C. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Why not? Which ones? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

F-35 detected in Germany not a valid criticism

The last paragraph of the criticism section stating that the F-35 was detected is frankly not a valid one, as this involved the use of bi-static radar against an aircraft with a known flight path to a public event. Furthermore, the two F-35As had their transponders on and were transmitting in ATC frequencies.[1] This is not at all reflective of how the aircraft would actually be used, and I think it lends undue weight. See the reference for analysis. Steve7c8 (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "No, Passive Radar Isn't Going To Make Stealth Technology Obsolete Anytime Soon". The War Zone. 30 September 2019.

Mostly finished tuning article, please review

I think I've mostly done with the major tuning (or "damaging", as some have characterized) of the article. Article has been pruned from 288 kB down to about 208 kB, though I'm not alone in this effort. Now that I've done my damages, please review the article, I tried as much as I could to be balanced and neutral. Steve7c8 (talk) 07:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm hoping that the article can be improved to the point that it qualifies for GA or A rating. What are thoughts about the article quality thus far? Steve7c8 (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
It's definitely getting better with all the work you and User:Kyteto have done on it! - Ahunt (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I'll see if User:Kyteto wants to do another pass on the article. Otherwise, I'm thinking of nominating it for GA. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Move Operators into its own article

The operators section adds considerable length with details such as the squadrons of individual countries. I don't think this is a level of detail needed in this article, and I think it would be better to split it off to its own article, i.e. Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II operators, like the case with the F-15 and F-16 articles. Steve7c8 (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - Ahunt (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support moving full details to separate operators article, though a listing of the nations and services needs to remain in this article as a summary. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Done. Steve7c8 (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

GA nomination

As some may have noticed, I've nominated the article for GA. Reviewers, please provide critique on how to improve this article. Steve7c8 (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I will just say, "amazing work"! - Ahunt (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Specification of the B and C variants?

The specification section refers to the F-35A only. It would be useful to know how the B and C variants differ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.53.88 (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

It's already there. - BilCat (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Development and Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II development don't align

Why does the Development portion of this article seem to tell a different story from the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II development article? The F-35 Development article has actual relevant development details and state of the program over the years. The Development portion of this article seems to be some kind of promotional story made to make this giant program look good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConcernedCitizenWC (talk • contribs) 20:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Addressing the additional paragraphs added to Development

For some reason, two paragraphs consisting of reports and articles from 2010-2013 were added to Development, which delves into the kind of "newsy" details that we're trying to avoid here. Not to mention that some of the performance numbers put forth are no longer valid given both the 2019 SAR and the 2018 F-35 Aerodynamic Performance Verification paper[1] that was published. To address the points made in the paragraphs.

  • A report released in 2013 stated that flaws in the fuel tank and fueldraulic (fuel-based hydraulic) systems have left it considerably more vulnerable to lightning strikes and other fire sources, including enemy fire, than previously revealed, especially at lower altitudes. - What is the point of this sentence, when the very next sentence, which is sourced, stated that the problem has been addressed and the lightning risk was eliminated? "The F-35 Lightning II program office says a problem with the jet’s electrical and fuel tank systems has been fixed, removing restrictions that at one time prohibited the plane from flying within 25 miles of the nearest thunder and lightning storm."[2] This is exactly the kind of minutia in problem discovery and resolutions from testing that we're trying to avoid; this is an encyclopedia, not a catalogue of problems and fixes.
  • The same 2010 report also noted performance degradation of the three variants; the sustained turn rates had been reduced to 4.6 g for the F-35A, 4.5 g for the F-35B, and 5.0 g for the F-35C. - The sustained turn rate for F-35A from the verification paper, page 5,[1] is shown to be considerably higher; following the Ps=0 curve at Mach 0.8 in the maneuver performance chart at 19,000 ft,[3] sustained turn is approximately 5.4 g; this in fact exceeds the original 5.3 g turn rate at 15,000 ft KPP threshold from the 2012 DOT&E report[4] that the Flight International article references.
  • The acceleration performance of all three variants was also downgraded, with the F-35C taking 43 seconds longer than an F-16 to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2; this was judged by several fighter pilots to be a lower performance level than expected from a fourth generation fighter. - Source of the statement regarding reduction in acceleration comes from the same 2012 DOT&E report as the reduction in sustained turn. Given just how considerably the F-35A has actually exceeded the sustained turn KPP in the 2018 verification paper after adjusting for pessimistic estimates of engine operating conditions, it frankly brings the acceleration figure in 2012 DOT&E report into question; note that no subsequent DOT&E report has mentioned reduction in maneuver and acceleration performance.
  • On 30 August 2013, it was reported that the F-35B and F-35C models take several complex maneuvers in order to "accelerate" to their top speed of Mach 1.6, which consumed almost all of the onboard fuel. - What is the context or significance here? A sentence in the source (which is a blog, by the way) after the "Rutowski" climb description states that acceleration is F/A-18-like. Does this somehow imply that this profile is what is required to go supersonic? Are there restrictions such as test range boundaries that force a faster acceleration profile in order to remain within boundaries? This sentence frankly seems like pointless trivia.
  • The F-35 program office is reconsidering addition of previously removed safety equipment. - And? What is the impact of the safety equipment? Is this notable and has there been any adverse effects in operation? This seems to be another case of pointless trivia and "newsy" addition that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.
  • In 2012, Lockheed Martin program manager Tom Burbage said that while the relatively large cross-sectional area of the fighter that was required by the internal weapons bays gave it a disadvantage against fourth generation fighters that were operating in a clean configuration. - This article about potential acceleration problems is from 2012, even older than the DOT&E report that raised the issue. Again, the actual 2018 F-35 verification paper shows the aircraft considerably exceeding performance thresholds, which raises the strong likelihood that this article from 2012 is out of date.
  • Even in the final "3F" software version, the F-35 will lack ROVER, in spite of having close air support as one of its primary missions. - This sentence seems to imply that the F-35's CAS capabilities will be severely compromised by the lack of ROVER. Considering that the A-10, a dedicated CAS platform, only received ROVER in 2008,[5] this sentence is frankly not stated in a neutral manner. Furthermore, ROVER-NG is planned for Block 4.[6]

Steve7c8 (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The only performance parameters covered in the SAR are combat radius and mission reliability (combat radius has been corrected in the F-35A specs section), and the turn rate figures from the "Aerodynamics Performance" paper are not accessible for free, so they must be verified by someone else. The rest of this (with the exception of the "ROVER-NG" link) is a combination of speculation and "let's remove it, because it doesn't look good", which is not enough for removal of sourced content. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Not sure why you're so quick to revert just because the source is not easily accessible (it's only $25 anyways). Per accessibility guidelines, "do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." In any case, Here is a screenshot of the maneuver performance E-M chart on page 5. You can easily see what the sustained turn rate is by following the Ps=0 line. As for the other parts, lightning risk has already been mentioned in the paragraph above ("Testing found several major problems:..."), it's pointless to have another two sentences stating that there was a lightning risk, and then that it was rectified. Regarding acceleration, the comparison with the F-16 as stated in the paragraph was never invoked in the 2012 DOT&E report, it simply stated "performance specifications", which no longer reflects actual air vehicle performance, which you can very clearly see from the 2018 maneuver performance E-M diagram above. The performance verification paper on page 5 itself stated some of the reasons for reports of missed or lowered performance.
"For the performance requirement in Fig. 4, calculated performance dipped below the tripwire level in late 2012. A subset of maneuvers from the dedicated performance flight test matrix was executed to evaluate the relative accuracy of the preflight test aerodynamics database. Results of this dataset analysis indicated that the pretest databases provided a good match of measured performance, and that uncertainty in the final level of aerodynamics was not high. From this analysis, and in agreement with the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO), we reduced the fuel flow conservatism factor used for specification performance calculations from 5 to 4 percent. The change in conservatism was enough to allow the calculated performance to exceed the tripwire level."
Note that the 2012 timeframe was around when reports of reduced combat radius, reduced sustained turn rate, and reduced acceleration emerged. The Program Manager in 2009 stated that "'All of our predictions for performance are based on an end-of-life, worst-case' scenario relative to the F135 engine's power capacity, 'so the true performance of the jet, throughout its life, will be much better.'"[7] From the 2019 SAR and from the maneuver performance E-M chart in the verification, we can at least see that at the very least reduced combat radius and reduced sustained turn rate is not the case.
The statements alluding to poor acceleration compared to fourth generation fighters runs directly counter to more recent interviews from F-35 pilots, including the F-35C pilots; Lt. Col. David Berke states, "Fighter aircraft all have to have a level of performance and maneuverability: speed, Gs, turn rate, turn radius, acceleration, climb—all of those things. In the F-35, there’s not a massive change in those performance metrics. The F-35 is better [than legacy aircraft], but not a lot better. But those ways to measure an airplane are not nearly as relevant now as they used to be." Col. Arthur Tomassetti states, "All three variants have the same specified top speed—Mach 1.6. Because they’re slightly different airplanes, some may get to it a little faster than others. Obviously, with the big wing on the F-35C, you’ve got to drive that a little bit harder to get to 1.6. [When you cross the Mach threshold], you can notice it only if you’re paying attention to it. There is a little bit of a shudder, or vibration. If you were distracted or busy with something else, you might miss it. [On the mission that first combined short takeoff, supersonic dash, and vertical landing in a single flight], I think I noticed the transition just because of the magnitude of the event."[8] As previously discussed on this talk page, most editors who read this article want to do away with "newsy" additions and "avoid submerging them in a long list of semi-random and contradictory events" as User:Nigel Ish puts it. Steve7c8 (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The diagram is a bit blurry, but the turn rate appears to be correct, just a bit under 5.5g. The Ps=0 line looks a bit strange though, it doesn't reach maximum Mach number even in level flight without turning. External payload, maybe? SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
It's almost certainly an external payload. With maximum Mach number of 1.41 or so, this would be a 19,000 ft chart based on this envelope (page 9 of the verification paper), correct? Steve7c8 (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
That's basically right, though I'll note that the envelope chart doesn't seem to show level flight out to the Mach limit at lower altitudes. The stall speed from the maneuver diagram is also a bit lower than the envelope diagram, so these diagrams probably are for different weight and external payload configurations, but still combat representative. SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
If the figures are verifiable, I have no problem with the paragraph going away. However, I would like to point out that your arguments about "more recent interviews with the pilots contradicting the older sources" are not very convincing, since, firstly, both LM and AF pilots are bound by the corporate "ethics" and, secondly, when it doesn't come to sheer numbers or factology update, the older source does not automatically become obsolete with the emergence of a new one. I would say, it would be right to keep both takes in the article - this would provide a reader with complete picture. Also, it seems like the "Aerodynamics Performance" paper does not speak of the turn rates in an explicit manner and what you're doing up in the comments section is a kind of original research based on the paper. Such phrases as "almost certainly", "basically right" and "probably are not different" speak volumes. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
The chart is definitely explicit, there is no other way of reading it. By definition, sustained turn rate is marked by the Ps=0 curve on an E-M chart, with Ps<0 indicating deceleration (energy depletion) and Ps>0 indicating acceleration (energy addition). See energy-maneuverability theory. Steve7c8 (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
An E-M diagram is unambiguous since it characterizes maneuver performance for the given weight and loadout configuration. That aspect is not shown in the chart, but with the Ps=0 line terminating before the maximum Mach number from the envelope, the performance should be better when clean. SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I thought we already agreed to move most of the "development" into its own article. Most of that section should be trimmed back to the basic summary. What is interesting here is the design of the jets and their operations. The article is too long otherwise. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes, like I said, Development portion of this article seems to be some kind of promotional story made to make this giant program look good. The F-35 Development actually got good info that shows what this program truly is. If some editor doesn’t want any criticisms he doesn’t like here, then we should delete the promotional fluff piece he wrote for Development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConcernedCitizenWC (talk • contribs) 04:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

References

References

  1. ^ a b Parsons, David; Eckstein, Austin; Azevedo, Jeff (24 June 2018). "F-35 Aerodynamic Performance Verification". American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. doi:10.2514/6.2018-3679.
  2. ^ Shaw, Mitch (16 April 2015). "F-35 'Lightning' now OK to fly in lightning storms". www.standard.net. Ogden Publishing Corporation. Retrieved 22 November 2016.
  3. ^ Maximum Mach of 1.42 in the maneuver performance chart corresponds to 19,000 ft on the envelope chart.
  4. ^ Sustained turn KPP found on page 9 of LCDR Geoffrey Bowman, Scorecard Case Study of the Joint Strike Fighter Program, Air Command and Staff College, April 2008
  5. ^ Kurle, David (18 January 2008). "ROVER provides pilot's view to ground forces". U.S. Air Force.
  6. ^ "Lockheed Martin Awarded $1.8 Billion for F-35 Block 4 Development". DefenseWorld.net. 8 June 2019.
  7. ^ "Fighter of The Future".
  8. ^ "F-35: What The Pilots Say".

Development section reads like LM propaganda

This part ignores just how many problems the F-35 got which you have to read the separate Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II development to find out. Instead this just talks about how big the program is how difficult it is but brush away all the problems. It when they get added they’re quickly removed with the mindset "let's remove it, because it doesn't look good". ConcernedCitizenWC (talk) 07:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

To have this complaint taken seriously you will need to indicate what WP:RS you think should be included and what should be quoted from them. Otherwise there is nothing specific to act on here. - Ahunt (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

SOM-J

Turkish government page says that they stll want to integate it (no date) so it should be mentioned in the aticle. Speculating that they can't do it is original research. Oranjelo100 (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC) [8]

It is quite simply out of date information on a 2017-dated webpage that hasn't been taken down. Turkey may "own" 4 X F-35s for now, but they are in the US and are not going to be delivered to Turkey, as the country is out of the program. They will either be bought from them, or just seized. The best you could conclude from the 2017 ref you have been trying to cite was that at one time Turkey had planned to implement this, but it has been overtaken by events. Since it was only an unrealized plan, it is just "not notable". - Ahunt (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 20:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Picking this one up. Review to follow shortly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Very impressive

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I have some comments, none of which will hold up promotion to GA status:

  • Consider folding note 1 into the text. Some of the other notes should also be considered.
  • Some of the notes are not obviously referenced.
  • The "Combat use" section is messy, with one-sentence paragraphs (cf. MOS:PARA) nbut I have no suggestion for impriovement
  • The online references are missing access dates.
Looks really good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the review. This article took many hours to tune, and I'm not alone in the effort. The combat use section is rather short mainly because the aircraft only recently entered service, and many details of the deployments are not public. This article will take continual maintenance to ensure its quality. Steve7c8 (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Schematic of the current configuration

The two schematic images used in the article currently represents Configuration 240-1.1, which was the PWSC that pre-dates critical design review (CDR) and not the current configuration, which is Configuration 240-4.7. You can easily tell if you know what you're looking for; the current 240-4.7 stabilitors are larger and have noticeably lower aspect ratio. The proper schematic of 240-4.7 can be found here,[1] but I'm not sure if we can use images from this publication. Technically it's a part of a professional technical society, AIAA, of which I'm a member of but I'm not sure what the rules are for images from that source. Steve7c8 (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

That refs says: "This website is protected by U.S. and foreign copyright laws. All images and information contained in the website are, to the extent possible, copyrighted and otherwise proprietary." However the image can be shown to be US government in origin and just reprinted in the publication then it would be "public domain". - Ahunt (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Specifically, this is the image from the article that I'm referring to. I'm not sure if it's available for non-members of AIAA. However, since the bottom of the report says "Copyright © 2018 by Lockheed Martin Corporation. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission", I guess this image is not public domain. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Probably not. Too bad, because, as you indicated it would be useful. If you are a member, any chance you could write to them and ask them to release it under a permissive licence? - Ahunt (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Sure, I can give that a shot. Steve7c8 (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Not much harm in asking. - Ahunt (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "F-35 Air Vehicle Configuration Development". doi:10.2514/6.2018-3367. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Revamping "Basing plans for U.S. F-35s"

I think the section here should just be named "United States", and have the planned procurement numbers moved to the Procurement and international participation section. The basing details are already covered in the F-35 Operators article, and is rather excessive here. Steve7c8 (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It may have made sense before any were deployed, but I think it has now been basically "overtaken by events". - Ahunt (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I've made my edits. Now that I look at it, should Introduction and United States sections be merged? The former is entirely about its entry into US service. Steve7c8 (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you are quite right, those two sections should be merged! Your work looks good so far! - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Update total aircraft

Hi all,

I need help adding the link for the number of planes built, it's #4 and it's: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/f-35.html?gclid=CjwKCAjw4871BRAjEiwAbxXi24ldr2YMRODK8CLGAn2pdu2oquC_xn6hQB-jMtztq2obrp5BVA8xIRoCqrAQAvD_BwE

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moseswhite1 (talk • contribs) 5/7/2020

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moseswhite1 (talk • contribs)

Help needed to clarify Italian Air Force F-35 orders as of 2019-21

Current sources seem to indicates a political and economic mess with the Italian Five Star Movement pushing back strongly on any new orders. The Covid hit on the Italian economy is adding to the contradictory info out there. As such I have pulled sources back to the 2014 procurement plans. Any help welcomed. Simon Adler (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
This issue has been addressed by User:Mark83. Simon Adler (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

I fully agree that the criticism section looks frankly out of place, and a lot of the information is a bit redundant, such as the criticisms surrounding concurrency. I believe that whatever unique information can be integrated into Development section.

Frankly, I think the paragraph about the Harper Magazine article is a case of undue weight. Having read the article, several of the claims presented from the article raise eyebrows due to lack of context, or lack of sourcing/attribution. I'll give a few examples below.

  • "[F-35Bs] only managed to fly, on average, one combat sortie per plane every three days." - What is the expected or normal combat sortie rate, and how does it compare to the AV-8B Harrier that it replaced? Also, is this under a combat scenario that requires sortie surges? This statement in the article does not appear to have any attribution or context.
  • Additionally, the F-35 initially carried a radar whose frequent freezing required pilots to regularly switch it off and back on, a problem that was "eventually corrected," - Is it really noteworthy or relevant to point out early software instability problems, especially when the article itself said that the issues have been resolved?
  • ...while the USAF version featured an "unacceptably inaccurate" gun on which the service stated it is "working" on a solution. - Already mentioned in the Test section.
  • Environmental issues were also cited, such as the F-35 being "at least four times noisier than the ­F-16". - Acoustic impact has already been mentioned, and the "four times noisier" statement appears to have been recycled from early noise concerns and have no attribution in the article.
  • The article claimed it belongs in a "bulging arsenal of weapons systems incapable of performing as advertised and bought at extraordinary cost," the ­F-35 costing, as Cockburn claimed, almost six times more than the ­F-16 it is replacing, while the whole program is, at a projected total cost of $406 billion, the "most expensive weapons program in history". - Is it really appropriate to insert the journalist's opinion on the aircraft's value and repeat the cost information already under the development section? This seems to be veering into undue weight.
  • By March 2019, the F-35 program is projected to have a lifetime cost of $1.5 trillion, "roughly what [the U.S.] spent on the entire Iraq War." - The commonly stated "$1.5 trillion" is for life time cost of operating the aircraft to 2077; how valid is it to put such weight on this number given that we won't come close to this amount in decades?

I would suggest that we integrate relevant parts of this section into the rest of the article, which is not all that much given that a lot of the criticisms have been mentioned already. If there are no objections, I'll start integrating it. Steve7c8 (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Criticism type sections can easily lead to unbalanced coverage, see WP:CSECTION. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I mean when actual death traps like the Brewster Buffalo, de Havilland Sea Vixen, and some MiG-23 models don’t even have a Criticisms section, seems odd to have one for this aircraft. As stated before, the size and prominence of the program has driven extreme coverage, scrutiny, and highlighting of flaws that is frankly not balanced. Steve7c8 (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Exactly the opposite is applicable: moving the cumulating flaws from one section into somewhere in the article hides the total amount of design flaws, and therefore whitewashes the subject. If you look for precedents, you should have a look at articles like Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, which has an extensive section about the flaws (even though under "Flying characteristics" here), Bell YFM-1 Airacuda, or other language versions like the German, Spanish, Italian or French, the latter having an extensive and well referenced "design flaws" section for the F-35. Acting like this is also questionable because this is a "good article", and altering it this way is a potential reason for a reassessment. WP:CSECTION is only applicable if the arcticle has almost nothing else in it than the criticism section. However, it may be renamed "flaws" as a sub-item of "design". 2A02:8108:8AC0:2EE4:D124:6B2C:604A:89E3 (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Your analysis is absolutely WRONG. Per WP:CSECTION, "Likewise, the article structure must protect neutrality. Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section." (Emphasis in original.) Despite the poor phrasing, the context makes clear that it's referring to "sections ... dedicated to criticism", not "...articles dedicated to criticism". The first paragraph began with "An article dedicated to negative criticism...", so the this section is talking about criticism sections. There's no mention of "WP:CSECTION is only applicable if the article has almost nothing else in it than the criticism section." Instead, it clearly states Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism..- BilCat (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
"Design flaws" ist therefore a "superior" section to use here, so it's right that way. Also the problem of hiding the criticism by distributing it still applies. Additionally, it would be important to have the "Early criticism" - like the flaw of using only one engine and having no backup for engine failures (ref http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/14/pentagons-big-budget-f-35-fighter-cant-turn-cant-climb-cant-run/ ) - featured since it shows that mistakes were already made before even building a prototype. 2A00:20:303C:33E1:F1A0:FDE3:477B:971C (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Having only one engine isn't a "design flaw". There are many single-engine combat aircraft, even carrier-based, and the most popular Western fighter, the F-16, is single engined. Another very troubled aircraft with many, many, many design flaws is the LCA Tejas, and I can't recall a single criticism that it only has one engine, and it has a carrier version too. Comparatively, the F-35 has been far more successful than the LCA, which has been in development for nearly 40 years, twice as long as the JSF program. And the HAL Tejas article doesn't have a dedicated criticism section, though it has a "Shortcomings and upgrades" section. - BilCat (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
There is already a reference up there for this, and as I mentioned there were newspaper reports about this flaw before the first prototype flew, it's easy to find with some research. Also it's one of the main reasons why Germany did not choose the F-35 as a replacement for the Tornado. And almost all modern fighter designs are twin engine. Have a look at other language versions of this article and you see this and a lot more. In it's current form the article looks more like industry propaganda, because it hides the amount of criticism from the very beginning of the project. 2A00:20:303C:33E1:F1A0:FDE3:477B:971C (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Again, the choice between one and two engine isn't a "flaw", as it's defined in English. A "shortcoming", certainly, and a disadvantage in some circumstances, but a twin-engined F-35 would be even more expensive, and that would be criticized too! Other language Wikipedias have their own guidelines, and can handle criticisms sections any way they choose. English Wikipedia doesn't recommend Criticism sections, and that's that. - BilCat (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


After 15 years of flying, only 36 percent is allowed to be used, the reason being constant breakdowns.[20] https://rg.ru/2021/01/29/dve-treti-f-35-okazalis-nesposobny-letat.html this is the official state media — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.126.129.27 (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know whether this is official state media or not, as I don't read Russian, but the domain name of the link clearly shows that it is from Russia, so hardly a reliable unbiased source for a western military aircraft. - Nick Thorne talk 13:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Even if it is official state media, the Russians have no reliable data on F-35 maintenance, so it has to be assumed that this is propaganda and not a WP:RS. - Ahunt (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
But then why did you restore the unreliable source in the article about this at?Korvidus (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, that was an error on my part, old page saved ...  Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The article in question is also confusing Mission-Capable (MC) rates with Full-Mission-Capable (FMC). The 80% figure mandated by Mattis was for MC, and the 36% figure they are quoting is FMC. Apple and oranges. - Obivader (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Turkey missing from map image

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F-35_potential_purchasers_without_Turkey.png

Turkey was one of the producer countries. Turkish companies produced thousands of parts of the plane. also; so the map instead of removing Turkey from the producing countries should be indicated as another color Unresolved political causes and consequences remain. --45.135.206.204 (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Have Glass

Just noting that I'm surprised there is no mention of the Have Glass paint used on this aircraft. In fact there is no mention of it anywhere on Wikipedia that I can find. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

If you have a reference it can be added! - Ahunt (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Moved F-35D, CF-35 to new Proposed Variants section

As far as I've been able to discover, the F-35D and CF-35 don't actually exist (yet). As such, I thought it was weird that they would be included in a list of variants that do. Therefor, I create a Proposed Variants section and moved those piece of the article to it in full. Although the paragraphs about the F-35D and CF-35 have been otherwise left unchanged, I didn't flag it as a minor edit just in case there was some reason I'm not seeing that fictional versions of the aircraft were included in a list of real, existing versions. MechanoidWarhead (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. - Ahunt (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

When was the F-35B actually introduced?

When was the F-35B actually introduced? The infobox says 2015 with the USMC, but https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/rates/fy2018/2018_b_c.pdf doesn't list the F-35B and it's not listed for previous years either at https://comptroller.defense.gov/Financial-Management/Reports/rates2018/ (click on the year and then click on "Fixed Wing and Helicopter Reimbursement Rates" to see the PDF for that year). Can anyone explain why this is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.39 (talk • contribs)

Flight International is a pretty authoritative and reliable source. Between that, and the fact this this USMC news story agrees, I think we can close the book on this. Mark83 (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I haven't a clue what that PDF file is even about, other than some kind of accounting thing. However, the citation, which is to a reliable source likely based on a US Government press release, states the date that IOC was declared, and that's that. BilCat (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
USMC announced operational capability for their F-35B on 31 July 2015, source being the US Naval Institute news. Seems solid.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Yak-141 connection

It appears that a statement tying the F-35B to the Yak-141 has reappeared, citing a source from 1998 that frankly has been superseded by more recent information. While the sources below are primary, I think there is enough body of evidence to show that the Yak-141 is not significantly responsible for making the F-35B possible. Swivel nozzle designs in the US predate the Yak-141, such as that on the Convair 200, and furthermore, the F-35B's shaft-driven lift fan system is distinctly different from the Yak-141's direct lift engines. Steve7c8 (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

F-35B Lightning II Three-Bearing Swivel Nozzle Propulsion system for a vertical and short takeoff and landing aircraft

Thanks for finding those links. I've always questioned those who were pushing the Yak-141 connection, and it's nice to have something concrete to cite now. (When you added this section, I was afraid it was another Yak apologist posting again!) We actually have an article on the Convair Model 200, so the Code One source can probably be added there, and information on the TBSN added to the text. BilCat (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Stealth

When someone writes something is stealthy or it is stealth and if it is connected with aircraft, ordinary people do connect immediately such wording with invisible as many articles including ones from manufacturers, popular media outlets and news suggested such meaning especially in the past - for example "Stealth: Flying Invisible - The Past, Present and Future of Stealth" from https://www.smithsonianchannel.com/video/show/stealth-flying-invisible/22151, "How The Fantasy Of Invisibility Becomes Reality In The Sky" from https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2015/WashPostF352.html . Both mentioned articles suggest invisibility is related to stealth which is false claim.

It should be noted that such thing as invisible or stealth related to F-35 does not exists. F-35 could been seen and tracked optically, with TV or IR/thermal camera and optical systems, with radars even at great ranges(depends on types of radars used) and by at least two other means I will not write here about. So using word "stealth" and considering all ways it is connected in general population with word "invisible" because of media without saying about constraints of such a strong wording and in what area some stealth exits if exist at all is not justified.

It is misleading readers without proper explanation to what is stealth related regarding F-35. To use such a strong wording for some object implies to regular readers form of invisibility.

It is more correct to say for example: "F-35 is difficult to detect by some types of radar at some ranges" or "F-35 have some stealthy features but is not invisible to radars" or "F-35 is less observable in long ranges to K, X, C bands of radar"

Claiming anything that ordinary reader could immediately connect to invisible is false and given pretext of using "stealth" as something "invisible" all over media and even by manufacturer gives more falsehood to readers especially ones that are not familiar to matter. Encyclopedia when presenting something should care about perception of such wording to ordinary readers and care if such wording presents actual facts to related object so writing word "stealth" without giving immediately proper explanation after in lead of this article could be pretty misleading. Loesorion (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't belong in the lede as that is just a summary and an overview and does not get into detail. Otherwise it is covered in Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II#Stealth and signatures. - Ahunt (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Ahunt long time no seen, since from Airbus A220 or later, welcome here, when summary is incorrect and misleading it should be corrected and it doesn't matter if it is or not covered in Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II#Stealth and signatures. Lead of this article has so many words in dozen of sentences so why not tell more precisely about F-35 with just a few more words? As a reader I don't like to be mislead hope you do not also as millions of readers across world. Loesorion (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
As I said, the details do not belong in the lede and you will need a much more NPOV ref than tass.com to add anything more about this subject to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
So you say, NPOV is irrelevant here as I am not talking about sources, I could change it without adding a source as here context and meaning matters. Main thing here is to explain to reader stealth does not imply invisible, and sources you can find already in article I do not need to add them. Here we talk about correct use of wording not sources and right way to present information to readers. Loesorion (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I think that does not belong in the lede of this article and neither does the other editor who removed it when you inserted it. So you have made your proposal - lots of editors watch this article, so let's see if anyone supports it here. - Ahunt (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
While it is possible I am putting too much faith in 'the average reader', I do not think the automatic conclusion is that stealth aircraft are optically invisible. I feel this does not need to be explained on every article with a coined 'stealth' aircraft, especially not in the lede. In-linking to Stealth_technology#Aircraft or similar would be far more appropriate as it is a whole article in itself if you truly want that level of detail. Sure the NPOV rebuttal may be moot, but you're definitely gonna have to chuck an actual vote up to gain consensus to make the aforementioned changes at this point. — IVORK Talk 23:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
It is not just optical invisibility, others are also impossible for technology available today...But perception about word "stealth" is invisibility, most people are not specialist in physics, electronics and other fields to understanding how it works and what is possible and what is not...And mass media and even producer of F-35 bombarded them with invisibility when they talk about stealth. Lockheed Martin writes about a cloak from “Harry Potter”? So what ordinary people could think after such a statement from F-35 producer and they watched movies about Harry Potter? Loesorion (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Loesorion: Your attempt today to force your own way on this issue, since reverted as POV, is against the consensus in this discussion so far. I would advise you to knock that off before you get blocked. You seem determined to denigrate this aircraft's capabilities. If you have some WP:COI on this subject I think you need to disclose that before this discussion proceeds. - Ahunt (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Ahunt you always seems to me try to block me from editing nothing else, you have no argument you just force ways to prevent editing, here I am talking about not using word stealth without simple explanation and I have not removed completely that word, yet my attempts to edit with preserving that word are blocked. And lead have no citation for word "stealth" btw? Loesorion (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The use of the term is referenced in the article text and so does not normally need a ref in the lede, see MOS:CITELEAD. You have been around long enough that you should know that. You also did not reply to my request that you indicate your WP:COI on this subject. - Ahunt (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I am publicly declaring that I do not work for any companies involved in any of my Wikipedia editing I do not work in any company with job of degrading, promoting or protecting public image of any company on Wikipedia. I am not paid for edits. Ahunt while you asking me, could you do the same about WP:COI not just for this edits here but also on Airbus and others. It seems to me that I am attacked here by you even on personal level, you do not care about content and my edits only to block me from editing. I have btw provided source for my first edit of article, then it was removed, when I edited without source according to MOS:CITELEAD while preserving word "stealth " and adding just few words into lead again I am prevented from editing. Do you ask consensus every time when you edit few word in some part of lead article on Wikipedia? And what is forbidden from editing on Wikipedia - maybe declare that and I will stay away? Instead doing the thing you are doing maybe you just for once could try stick to subject here in Talk. Loesorion (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

F-35 is invisible - so many sources including producer say Yes

F-35 is invisible plane, so in lead of article invisibility should be stated, many sources including producer state invisibility. https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2015/WashPostF352.html . When you think about F-35 just think it about how Harry Potter is hiding under the cloak until Lord Voldemort comes... Loesorion (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you read the ref you added? Setting aside the obvious PR-dept hyperbole there in linking the F-35 and this technology, this is "under development" and has not been deployed in the aircraft or anywhere else. As the article notes it doesn't really work yet, either, even in the lab. - Ahunt (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I think we are getting into WP:POINT territory with some of these edits, given that the same individual has, on the one hand, tried to insert edits to denigrate this aircraft's stealth capabilities (whatever they may or may not be), and then also tried to insert edits claiming "invisibility" that is not supported by the sources and grossly exaggerates the aircraft's stealth capabilities. Both of these were done by the same editor within the space of 24 hours, which is suspicious. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree. Seems like at least WP:AXE here, and getting into WP:DISRUPTION, which is why I gave him the opportunity to explain why he is trying to do this, before he gets blocked. - Ahunt (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Source I added from producer of F-35 has title "How The Fantasy Of Invisibility Becomes Reality In The Sky" and is saying I quote: "Today, the F-35 strike fighter jet makes this fantasy a reality, as it navigates airspace with the most advanced powers of hide and seek. Its multiple stealth devices – radar-absorbing materials and internal infrared sensors – comprise the ultimate invisibility cloak. Cloaking, which makes objects partly or wholly invisible, manipulates the direction of visible and near-infrared light or electromagnetic waves around an object as if it weren’t there. For an invisibility cloak or shield to work, the material needs to curve waves completely around all dimensions of an object, and work with all backgrounds and angles of view."

I will not cite whole source, but word "invisible" is used in this source 12 times.

So fantasy of Invisibility becomes reality according to source not to me - did I read source or reference - you should not ask me such a question, I had of course read source before I used it, but did you? No you just stop edits, you do not read anything.

It seems to me you have not read source, and here is many more sources exists that are saying F-35 is invisible in many ways:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/if-the-f-35-fighter-jet-is-so-awesome-why-is-it-so-hated/ https://www.aerospacemanufacturinganddesign.com/article/supersonic-stealth--f-35-takes-to-the-skies/ https://sdquebec.ca/en/news/the-five-most-important-facts-about-the-f-35-fighter https://www.c4defence.com/en/israel-unveils-new-f-35-line/ https://www.rtx.com/news/2020/07/14/all-about-the-f-35 https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/israel-builds-jets-invisible-to-radar-with-new-f-35-wing-set-575600 https://www.channel3000.com/pocan-asks-air-force-to-clarify-future-of-f-35-jets-in-madison/ https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-northkorea-southkorea-aircraft-idUKKCN1U60BL

The latest source I given here - and many more exists - from Reuters is saying:

“There is no room for doubt that the delivery of ‘F-35A’, which is also called an ‘invisible lethal weapon’" - source tells us that F-35 is called invisible lethal weapon...

And no it is not nice how you treat me here as fellow editor....Suspicious and so on...

And I cannot denigrate facts only you can do that by preventing edits and that is all you are doing.

While you claim I am denigrating Lockheed Martin product and I am suspicious for who do you work for if you care so much about Lockheed Martin product. I just edit Wikipedia... Loesorion (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You know from my editing record here over 16 years here that I have no connections to any subjects, including this one. We seem to have a solid consensus from four editors here opposing your proposed edits and none in favour. You can just leave it at that if you like and move on as per WP:DEADHORSE. - Ahunt (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Are you saying that for stealth or invisible. Two different subjects in Talk, you once write in one other time in other one, and dead horse for one day and after so many sources I provided claiming it is invisible? No I do not know your editing record I do not tracks fellow editors but I do notice that you at least twice prevented me on doing edits and making as it seams gang against me - not nice again - and I am not blind - despite I have provided numerous valid sources here in this topic and you where still trying from start to stop edits using various Wikipedia rules without offering any real arguments related to discussion in Talk. Try for once to offer any sources as counter arguments and do not block my edits with excuses based on various Wikipedia policies that are not applicable here. Be polite and politeness will get back to you - just a saying. Are you paid to edit Ahunt - regardless on how long are you a editor or your connection on subjects? Loesorion (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
No I am not paid to edit Wikipedia and never have been. - Ahunt (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I've suggested your edits were both aimed at denigrating and over exaggerating its stealth capabilities within the space of 24 hours, so what's your excuse about me? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
You claimed that I am as editor suspicious - what excuse about you I do not understand? And what time has to do with it, my first edit on article regarding other topic was on 23 may second on 25 may and on this topic 25 may? One topic is here totally other topic is up in Talk do not mix it...Both are separate sections here in Talk about F-35 on different subjects. Loesorion (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Minor understanding issue: Variants: F-35C "The F-35C is limited to 7.5 g"

"The larger wing area allows for decreased landing speed while increasing both range and payload. The F-35C is limited to 7.5 g. " This could be misunderstood as if the F35C is limited to 7.5g payload (seven point five gramm), but I guess the limit is about gravitational force. Maybe it would be clearer to say "F-35C's acceleration is limitted to 7.5g." to avoid confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.121.135 (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed in this revision. - Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

German replacement of Tornados

The German Bundeswehr is ordering 35 F-35A planes to replace the Tornade in the role of nuclear sharing, as it is the only plane that is availible to carry the B61, NOT to replace all Tornados. 94.221.202.4 (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Germany from Potential Operators

@E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr You've been asked 3 times (by me, @favonian, and @BilCat to take your concerns to the Talk page rather than blanking content. I'm starting this discussion so you can state your concerns here. dizzyflamingo (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fnlayson: Looking at the edit history, you were the veteran editor who effectively added this to the article, so I'm alerting you to this discussion also. —C.Fred (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
On the face of it, I don't see an issue with including the potential German purchase, but we do have the procurement article for most of this type of information re: the F-35, as the editor in question pointed out. I've no hard opinion either way about it's inclusion here, but edit warring to remove it was uncalled for. BilCat (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Right and thanks. This follows the guidance in WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS and is done in various other WP:Aircraft articles. With this article, it was supposed to help with the back and forth removals and reverts. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Fnlayson The F-35 operational history section is about countries whom have taken delivery of the F-35 and on what missions it has been assigned to. The current status of Germany's F-35 procurement - has NOTHING to do with the operational history, of the F-35 within other countries active air forces. Please read the subsection: it says "Operational History", and then "testing" subsection, and then the missions the F-35 has been assigned to by countries who have only taken delivery of the jet. Germany is already included in the separate F-35 procurement wiki page. Please remove Germany from the main F-35 wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk • contribs) 20:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
BilCat you owe an explanation why you undid my initial revision/removal of Germany from the "Operational History" section without explanation from you - as Germany #1 doesn't have a signed contract for the F-35, and #2 they haven't even physically have taken deliver of the jet. BilCat but to vandalize articles by arbitrarily undoing revisions, without providing explanations, is uncalled for. I made one revision, and now you're covering your tracks by accusing me of edit warring - when it was you who vandalized the article by removing my revision without explanation, and you changed the spirit of the F-35 operational history section, by having all the countries who took delivery of the F-35, but for some reason you wanted Germany in there, when they didn't even take delivery of the jet! Better get to work and start adding all the other countries who've got the F-35 on order, but didn't take deliver of it yet either!E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Vandalism has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, and my reverting your edit was not vandalism. You are already on very thin ice, so please stop jumping up and down on it. Your initial statement was "has absolutely no right to be in this section, completely off-topic", which is completely over the top, but next to meaningless. I asked you to explain why on this talk page, but instead of doing that, you began a campain of revert warring and false accusations. That is what is unacceptable here, not my actions. Now, we've already begun a discussion on the merits of the issue, so stick to that. BilCat (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect to Fnlayson who does a lot of great work on WP... I don't see how this is supported by WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS, given the opening lines there state: "Do not place potential operators here, only confirmed orders with likelihood of near-term production. Potential orders and interest by governments should be covered in the main text, either under "Development" or "Operational history", as fits best in the article." (edit: I should probably address this at the guidance page instead).

...this tacked-on "potential operators" at the end does seem out of place. While all the other countries listed actually have F-35s and have declared IOC, for some reason Germany announces a fund with the intention of buying some F-35s just a few days ago and suddenly they're included in this section? There is no "operational history" here, which indicates what has already happened, not what might happen in the future. I think we should move this subheading and the German entry to another section of the page (imho). (note: this does not in any way mean I agree with the antics of the recently blocked editor who sought to have this content completely removed while attacking other editors with deplorable insults.) Cheers - wolf 21:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS says not to place "potential operators" in the Operators section but put them in the "Development" section or "Operational history" section instead (see first paragraph in section). This is what we agreed on originally. This was to put text in a prose section to properly explain it and not the list section (Operators). It is much easier for a user to make drive by edit to add to a list with no source. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
@Fnlayson: Bah, you're right I mixed them up, (thanks). Just the same, I still don't think that "potential operators" (with Germany or anyone else) is a good fit with "operational history", and we should consider moving to another section of the article. Is that something you'd be willing to consider? And if so, where? Cheers - wolf 21:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
  • OK, so another user added more German details to the "Procurement and international participation" subsection a little earlier. So I moved the potential operators text to there and combined the German text. Hopefully this will make sense to others as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Appreciate that, thanks. I do see your point about it being easier to add or update entries when they're listed in point-form as opposed to prose, so if there were to be a "potential operators" subsection, is there a location other than "operational history" where you suggest adding it? Cheers - wolf 22:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  • The project guidelines (WP:Air/PC) say to put "potential operators" under Operational history or Development. Those sections seem best to me, but ignore the rules if needed. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Information based on military experience

Good day pagewatchers, I am willing to add information based on maintenance experience in the military, but not sensitive information, with assistance from more experienced editors. Sheabutter98 (talk) 04:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

While edits from people knowledgeable in the subject can be beneficial, all content must be supported by reliable sources. As for "sensitive" info, people will occasionally try to remove content claiming it's "top secret", but if it can be found in publicly-accessible sources, then it can, and should, be included, per WP:NOTCENSORED. Hope this helps - wolf 04:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I'll add to what User:Thewolfchild has said: as long as additions are sourced to reliable sources, relevant and notable enough for an encyclopedia article then they are welcome. We do not however include "personal experience", see original research and Wikipedia is not a blog.
It may be best to at least outline your additions here. What sort of information and sources do you have?- Ahunt (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I will admit to being new to being an editor but I am interested in furthering knowledge towards this topic as best I can. I can provide specific details, when they are not a sensitive nature in regards to certain things. I personally have 4 years of experience maintaining this aircraft and can atest to being a part of certain testing and evaluation of procedures and practices. I know that personal experience is not a reliable source therefore I will try to prove claims with sources and submit them here prior to the actual page, if that would work? Sheabutter98 (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
My sources would be those I worked with, at VMX-1, the testing squadron for the Marine Corps testing F35B's, as well as engineers and subject matter experts. Sheabutter98 (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
For Wikipedia sources need to comply with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Basically they have to be publicly available sources that can be verified by readers, so you can't use unpublished conversations with people, "stuff I just know", emails or classified publications. Keep in mind, too, that this is a general encyclopedia and not a specialized aviation publication or technical manual, so it wouldn't be appropriate to add minor details like how often tire pressures get topped up, or the contents of DLIR inspection checklists, for example. In most aircraft articles information on maintenance is usually limited to unusual restrictions or limitations, such as airframe life limits; special upgrades; or major feet-wide repairs; that sort of thing. Probably also worth pointing that that we specifically avoid "how to" type info as explained at WP:NOTMANUAL.
What sort of text were you considering proposing to add? - Ahunt (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Information not seemingly covered in cited articles relating to vertical lift capabilities, as long as I can find sources for it outside of experience, as well as the recent testing events on the specific aircraft carrier ship designed for the f35, the lightning carrier, I cant remember specific name but its public information. Sheabutter98 (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
As well as how the ALIS/ODIN system aids maintainability, maintenance tracking, flight tracking, supply concepts and other things.Sheabutter98 (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Okay. If you want some help here you can post your text and refs here on the talk page and we can help you get it ready for the article. - Ahunt (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Agree with this suggestion. Also, you've mentioned "personal experience" several times now, I'm not asking you to clarify that, just thought you should be aware of the Conflict of Interest guideline. Have a look, if it applies to you, you can still contribute, the guidelines detailes how, and if they don't apply, then disregard and carry on. - wolf 02:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I am trying to avoid COI as much as possible due to my own personal biases so I appreciate the suggestion ill look into that. I believe it worth including somehow this article, USMC, U.S. Navy Demonstrate Lighting Carrier Concept, about testing f35b's lightning carrier testing, the LHD, a specific ship designed for stovl capable aircraft as well as helicopters. Also possibly an article, Marine Corps F-35B in Arizona Damaged by Round Discharged from Jet Cannon, about the time a f35 shot itself lol. Sheabutter98 (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Both seem like they may be worthwhile additions, one under the "Testing" section and the other under "Accidents...". Like Ahunt suggested, post your suggested additions here and either they or I, or another editor, will help get them added to the article. Cheers - wolf 05:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Supposed suggestion for addition under Accidents section follows
"On 12 March 2021, during a close air support weapons training night-time flight near Marine Air Station Yuma, Arizona, a PGU-32 round fired from the underside mounted gunpod on a F35B, a 25mm GAU/A gatling gun, detonated shortly after leaving the barrel of the gun. 

This specific round fired PGU-32/B SAPHEI-T (Semi armor piercing high explosive incendiary tracer), is designed to detonate after a round has penetrated a targets armor which begins a fuse delayed explosion and then spreads an incendiary to ignite to deal even more damage. These rounds are also equipped with graze detection, meaning even dealing a slight grazing blow to a target they will explode and spread the incendiary substance.  

The mishap was classified as a Class C, meaning the damages incurred were between $60,000-$600,000, and/or a nonfatal injury forcing lost time from work for the remained of the working day the injury occurred. The aircraft itself was grounded for maintenance for over 3 months, but the pilot was uninjured. The shrapnel from the round shot through several parts of the aircraft, such needing replacement."
Please give any feedback, feel free to grammar correct and such. Reference used- • A Marine F-35B Fighter Jet Accidentally Shot Itself With Its Own Gun Pod (Updated). Sheabutter98 (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Looks fine like that. The only thing I would change is grammatical:
the damages incurred were between $60,000-$600,000
to
the damage incurred was between $60,000-$600,000 - -Ahunt (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II/Archive_10&oldid=1142768884"