Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

F-35B First Flight

The STOVL F-35 successfully flew for the first time today, about 10:17 am CST! Landed safely at 11:01. Everything went smoothly. Cheers to the F-35 team! Askari Mark (Talk) 15:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this was a conventional flight, not a STOVL one. The latter won't be made until after the F-35B's basic handling qualities are assessed. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Mark, will they be testing only STOVL, or actually VTOL and V/STOL? It's my understanding that most STOVL aircraft are functionally VTOL with STOL capability, and used operationally as STOVL. Saying they are testing STOVL implies, to me anyway, that the arcraft is not capable of VTOs at all. Am I off-base here, or is STOVL now being used interchangably with V/STOL? - BillCJ (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The F-35 dumps fuel to be able to hover so I doubt it'll do any Vertical Takeoffs. That'd just waste fuel and range which is the reason why its called Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing. So what I'm saying is that F-35 can takeoff vertically but it won't fly very far because it dumped lots of fuel to make it lighter so you'll rarely ever see a F-35 takeoff vertically. --Jaewonnie (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There's a related Aviation Week article out today (subscr. content). They will do hover pit tests. Then they will move to shorter and shorter landing tests. After that it'll go to Pax River for vertical landing and short takeoff tests. No mention of vertical takeoffs. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed this earlier. Being STOVL, its primary takeoff modes are normal or STO. I’m not sure if it’s in the test plan to go VTO, but from the perspective of military operations VTO greatly limits payload and range compared to STO or normal takeoff (and can limit weapons bring-back as well, depending on the mission profile). Accordingly, it’s not much of a priority, although I’m sure it will be tested eventually as part of measuring its full flight envelope. I’ve never thought to check about this factor being in the test plan, so I can only speculate at this point. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Will other Harrier Operators get F35B?

What about other countries that operate with Harriers in small carriers? Apart from USA, UK, Italy & India there are also Harrier in Spain in Principe de Asturias (R11) & Thailand in HTMS_Chakri_Naruebet

Any info about if any of them will buy F35B? If any info is available it would be an interesting add to Potential exports section in the article

--ManoloKosh (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The UK and Italy are JSF partners which are already planning to order the F-35B. No non-partners have placed an order although Israel has stated an intent to buy them and the F-35B is under serious consideration. Spain and India are interested, but it's unclear whether Thailand plans to retain its carrier long-term or that it could afford such aircraft. Confirmed information is already in the article; speculation, however, really shouldn't be. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

this article [1] supports the idea of Israel planning for F-35B's should this information be in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Spain: Spanish Navy has manifested it´s need for the F-35B in the future, 2012 ahead. For the Principe de Asturias (R11) and the Juan Carlos I (L61) careers, as the need for the best capable STOVL plane, also some voices claim that the F-35A would be a possible purchase as a substitute of the aging F/A-18 Hornet of the SAF. Any way by now no order or agreement is being told, so i would say no more that: Spain is a potential buyer for about 60 F-35B´s (sources: AVION REVUE & FUERZA AÉREA Magazines--MigeruMadorido (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thrust to Weight

The thrust to weight ratio section in the article doesn't really discuss the actual Thrust to weight ratio. --Jaewonnie (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It does, just not directly. For vertical takeoff of the F-35B, it has to have a T/W over 1. The text should go somewhere else like Development (without similar aircraft content, that'd look odd). -Fnlayson (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
All it talks about is that the F-35B variant was too heavy and Lockheed Martin just made the jet lose some weight by cutting off some extra stuff. Thrust to Weight info about the other variants are left out ( except in the specifications ). So I think the title of that section should be renamed to something else because it just doesn't fit that well with the other sections around it. --Jaewonnie (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

See Also / Related Aircraft

I've added links to the pages for F-16, F/A-18, and Harrier in the "See Also" section, on the grounds that the different variants of the F-35 are replacing those aircraft in service. I also specifically linked to the Harrier Jump Jet page instead or the AV-8B Harrier II page, treating it as the "parent page" for all Harrier versions, since all Harrier variants are listed there, and because the F-35B would be replacing multiple variants of Harrier in various services, not just the AV-8 (ie. the British GR9/BAE Harrier II). Oops - accidentally put them under "related Development", moved to "See Also". PS I just added them to the end of the existing list - should the entire list be alphabetical instead? Kilkenny71 (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

F-16, F/A-18, & multiple Harrier articles are already linked in the text. So they should not go in the See also again per WP:SEEALSO. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

F-35B on carriers

Will the f-35b operate on regular Nimitz (and Ford) class aircraft carriers? or will they just be launched off those smaller helicopter carriers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

They will certainly be operated off the helo carriers, and I expect they will someday be seen operating off of the CVNs. It's up to the US Navy. I have heard of concerns about potential damage to the carriers' flight decks due to the high-temperature exhaust of the F-35B when operating in vertical takeoff and landing modes, but that wouldn't prevent STOL operational modes. When and if there's something firm, we'll add it to the article. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I work in the same office as the Expeditionary Airfield Officer for the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing, and they recently did some durability tests with one of the prototypes and some new airfield matting. According to him, the results were favorable as far as the damage they did to the matting, so I don't think a flight deck would be much worse off. Of course, being a ligher STOVL plane, it would not be beefed up enough to handle a conventional carrier catapault launch and arrested landing (like the F-35C), so it sounds like it's gonna have to be STOVL launch and recovery for the B variant. Obviously, I can't source this origional research, but I think it's relevant to the question. bahamut0013 04:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Electronic Warfare version?

According to the 2007 USMC Aviation Plan, page 1-9, the EA-6B is listed as being replaced by the F-35. However, on page 6-11, it shows no transition from the EA-6B by 2017 (the end of the chart). I haven't found any more references regarding what looks to be a plan to use the F-35 for electronic warfare. I do know that the Marine Corps elected to not acquire the EA-18G Growler, so this may be a sort of "holding pattern" plan until they figure out what to do... (perhaps just toss on a AN/ALQ-99 and call it a EW plane) bahamut0013 18:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The F-35 looks to be a part of the DoD electronic attack aircraft in the future.[2] When this solidifies, a subsection can be added for it under Variants. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Fnlayson is correct. The EA plan is still in development and there's nothing firm; however, given that the AESA radar is reputed to have some innate degree of EA capabilities, it seems a reasonable expectation. The lack of anything in the Marine Corps plan probably signifies nothing more than that such a version won't be introduced until after 2017. This seems reasonable given that by that date the USMC will still be building its initial combat squadrons. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I read an article saying the AF is looking to use the F-35 for Elect. Attack in the future as well. Probably relating to the fact that the EA-18G is to only support naval fleet aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks, that's some good info. I hope those Prowlers will last another decade, they are already averaging some advanced years (not as bad as some other aircraft, but still, the dang things are older than most of the pilots). bahamut0013 20:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
IIRC, as the EA-18Gs replace the EA-6Bs, the USMC will get to cherry-pick the best/newest airframes from the Navy, allowing it to retire its older airframes well before 2017. That was the plan, anyway. Note that while the fisrt EA-6B entered service in 1971, the last production airframe was delievered in 1991, so while some airframes are approaching 40, a few aren't even 20 yet. - BillCJ (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


The article currently says F-35 has a speed of Mach 1.6+ (1200 mph) citing the army's ZIP. GlobalSecurity (which is also a reference for the article) here says that F-35's speed is Mach 1.5+/Mach 1.8+ (1200 mph). While it is true that the Mach number is not easily comparable under different conditions, how can we know that (apart from the weight of the references) Mach 1.6 is a better estimate than Mach 1.5/1.8? Should we also mention the 1.5/1.8 estimate together with the 1.6 estimate? Are there any other refs clearly explaining JSF's Mach performance? NerdyNSK (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems consistent to me... 1.8 is in the range of 1.6+. And a military source will trump a civilian one any day for such a question. Truth is that the top speed it probably classified anyway, adding to the ambiguity. Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime  03:45, 7 Aug 2008 (UTC)
The manufacturer and customer (military) are official sources and in general should have precedent over other sources. Also, other sources may not be as up to date. The military sources (Ref 78 & 99 now) list Mach 1.6+ and ~1,200 mph. That'll be updated/verified in flight testing. Listing multiple numbers can be a bit confusing and does not help much in this case, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There's different versions of the F-35 though, and didn't they have different performance figures? What's with that? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wingtip mounts.

The article states that the outer wing mounts will only accept the AIM-9X Sidewinder. I would have thought that they should also be able to accept ASRAAM as well?

The aircraft has the data links to instruct the missile and the weight/drag profile isn't much different. I would have thought the ASRAAM off-boresight capability was important to maximise the usefulness of the HMDS. (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Chris

What happened to overspending/delay sections

I recall that some time ago the serious overspending and delays were part of the article. They are gone now. What happened to them, they should be in, as international participants were promised (in writing) a time and financial schedule that has been violated by the developers. Arnoutf (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven’t been watching this article closely, so I don’t know who removed it, but I agree that it needs a lot of work. I would point out, though, that schedules and prices have always been estimates/projections. There is no commitment until an actual contract has been signed. Most partners have indicated that they plan to make a decision in the 2008-2010 timeframe. So far, only the US has placed orders. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I am pretty sure contracts have been signed about time line, costing of the development phase, in which the strategic partners cooperated. Without such contracts, I think signing over several billions of government dollars to a private company seems a bit strange. Arnoutf (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Over 90% of the development funding and all the production funding so far have come from the US. No partner nations have signed production contracts yet. I looked back in the history 1 year and 2 years back and saw no dedicated cost or delay sections as you indicate above. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I have seen such section but it may have been in the Joint Strike Fighter article.... Whoever paid for it, I think the delays and budget problems are sufficiently notable to include. Note that this will have an impact on delivery dates and unit cost; so may influence decision of partners and indeed the US government to buy, how many or to select an alternative. Arnoutf (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
You’re quite right, Arnoutf; feel free to add relevant material. The partner contributions made to date are for the co-development program; while these contracts have planned schedules and projected costs, we all know reality plays by Murphy’s rules. When it comes to actual production contracts, though, these factors will be firmly addressed – and penalties assessed for missing targets (past some margin). Boeing has run into this with several of its military aircraft programs recently. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I will have a start soon. Btw the Dutch wikipedia page lists as problems:

  • Already 45% overspending in development
  • Delays SDD phase ends in 2015 instead of 2011
  • Final unit price cannot be clearly estimated, not even by SDD partners, as much of the relevant information is not open to scrutiny from these partners
  • Export versions will have reduced stealth technology to protect these technologies which was not the case in the initial agreement
  • Counter orders do not meet the promised level Arnoutf (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Some sources of critisism: US governmental accountability office [3] [4] UK parliament [5] Center for defense information [6] (an overview in Dutch [7]) Arnoutf (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

F-35 fails against Sukhois in computer simulation

Someone may want to add information from this news report to the article [8]

...The JSF jets, for which Australia is likely to pay $16 billion, were comprehensively beaten in highly classified simulated dogfights against Russian-built Sukhoi fighter aircraft, it has been reported.

The war games, conducted at Hawaii's Hickam airbase last month, were witnessed by at least four RAAF personnel and a member of Australia's peak military spy agency, the Defence Intelligence Organisation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think adding this is a bit premature since the information is so scanty. Is there any further information on this simulation – what model, who ran it, did they have accurate (which in this case means classified) data on both aircraft, and what Sukhoi aircraft were simulated (Su-30, Su-35, PAK-FA)? Askari Mark (Talk) 02:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Do the Australians realize that the F-22 costs more than the F-35 by a large amount, and is not a strike fighter (which is the F-35's primary role)? Also, the F-22 is not for sale, and the Democratic-led US Congress shows no sign of changing its mind. So how Australia supposed to "demandthat the US Government sell it the F-22" (emphasis added) is a bit beyond my comprehension. - BillCJ (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The new-ish Australian Government has stopped talking about buying F-22s (after an approach earlier in the year was knocked back) and is now talking up the F-35 at every opportunity. The Defence Minister and Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement say that they're happy with how the F-35 is looking (for instance, see: [9]). Unless something goes badly wrong, it looks like Australia is certain to buy about 100 F-35s. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps its worth mentioning, since this contract went without tender, that both the Liberal and Labor Party of Australia recieved election funding from Lockheed Martin?--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's worthy of inclusion into the article. Just because specific details are not yet available doesn't make the source inappropiate. (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? The story is just political posturing repeating an unverified rumor. The F-35 is not designed as primarily an air superiority fighter, while the F-22 is. This is like complaining that an F-150 is not as fast as a Corvette. Duh. If something more substantial is forthcoming, along the lines of what Mark mentioned, then we'll see. - BillCJ (talk) 04:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Nick, thanks for the clarifications. Rather than continue to edit war with these two IPs in hopes they will learn what it means to establish a consensus, I've rewritten what's theres for accuracy. Correct me if I'm wrong Nick, but I didn't think that Australia was normally considered "several countries"? Since the source only covers Australian reaction, I've moved the paragraph to the Australian section. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 07:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that it's even worth including there. The article states that only a single obscure opposition backbencher is worried about the (vauge) report, and his views are not shared by the opposition's defence spokesman, who instead describes the F-35 as "phenomenal". As such, this isn't worth a paragraph and I'm going to remove it per WP:UNDUE. The Defence minister has, rightly, requested that the Department of Defence brief him on the simulation ([10]), but this is routine for anything which gets into the newspapers and doesn't mean that the minister is particularly concerned - there'd be something wrong with him if he didn't ask his department to follow up on a report claiming that the biggest purchase in the history of the Australian Government is a lemon. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Australia's not alone in their dislike of expensive lemons. This is the type of story popular media and "public-interests" groups like POGO in the US just love, so it'll be interesting to see if they pick up on it. If they don't, that says a lot about the veracity of the rumor, or rather, the lack of it. - BillCJ (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The previous government (and now opposition) didn't do the F-35 procurement any favours by canceling the tender process for Australia's next fighter shortly after it started and declaring the F-35 the winner without ever really justifying why it was the only real option. The lack of justification about the F-35's selection has led to much more skepticism about the F-35 in Australia than is warranted. That they didn't learn from this mistake when an order was placed for F/A-18Fs out of the blue and without any kind of tender helps explain why they're no longer in power IMO. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I’ve found out a little bit about this event – unfortunately, much of that I can’t share at this point. I can say that there was no air combat simulation involved; moreover, the subject of the conference was a strategic-level affair that didn’t have a focus on comparisons of specific aircraft at all. How The West Australian came up with their interpretation is unclear, and there’s a lot of consternation among those who were in attendance over how it could have been so misconstrued.
While the anon is correct in that the source is not inappropriate, I’ve learned to be very leery about how accurately members of the general press understand and present technical or other complex issues. A good example from my own experience involves coming out of a coffee shop one morning and being approached by a radio station reporter wanting to know my opinion about a then ongoing drop in stock prices. I made it quite clear I was no expert, just an average investor, had my say, was thanked, and I left. Later on I had friends who listened to that station call me and tell me I was presented as an investment expert. At first I thought my friends were just joking with me about the "investment expert" bit, but no, that’s really how it was broadcast. In any case, I think my original call on this (very brief) story is the correct one. It’s interesting and controversial enough that more details are bound to come out, if there is indeed anything more to it. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Dutch press (Volkskrant) picked it up today referring to "Pacific Vision" simulation exercise. According to the paper the new radar for Su-35 planes could easily see the "stealthy" F35's, forcing them into a dogfight situation in which F35 is the underdog as "it cannot turn, it cannot climb, and it cannot run". This is relevant as it may affect public opinion; especially if you consider that the US promised their allies (Australia, Netherlands and others) a cheap, timely, light and above all stealthy strike fighter when they entered the JFS/F35 program. Arnoutf (talk) 07:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you feel so sure it's accurate, then feel free to offer an NPOV description of the incident. I know that a press release has been in preparation by the Pacific Vision sponsor (PACOM), so there soon ought to be statements available from both sides. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Re-inserted section on performance concerns with new sources [11] and [12] and [13] as well as the original article (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

And I've just taken it out again. This article should cover the concerns which have been raised over the F-35's performance, but the text you added is an inaccurate collection of weasel words, wrongly marked as a minor edit. The articles state that only a single MP is unhappy about the planes, and not "Some public figures in Australia" and you do not acknowledge that the articles state that MP's own party very strongly supports the F-35, as does the head of the Australian Defence Force. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Nor does it acknowledge that the F-22 is NOT a viable alternative, because the US Congress will not allow it to be exported to anyone. The F-22 mention probaly doesn't need to be here at all - one might as well say the Incom X-Wing (from Star Wars) is a better alternative than the F-35, because the ADF has just as much chance of getting it as they do the F-22! I've added Undue-weight tags to the section, and these should remain until the problems in the section have been solved, especially since I'm not allowed to improve it without prior discusiion (but the IP can re-add the section without discusion!) The whole section needs to be re-written if it is to be included at all. Given the broader coverage the issue is now receiving, I agree something needs to be mentioned in the article, but it needs to be balanced by the alternative views and counter-arguments, including LM's claims that the entire air combat simulation story is entirely false. I think they have a better understanding of the issue than some politicians responding to unverifiable rumors, and, even if they are understandably biased, their valid views should receive equal coverage. I can attempt a re-write, but with the contiual deletions, the IP has added his own version back each time, reather than the rewritten versions, so I'm not certain it's wrth the effort just yet. - BillCJ (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A further article here New US-bought Air Force fighters 'inferior' "The RAND Corporation's experts compared jets in a wargame and the ABC has obtained the results.

In bad news for the Air Force, which is set to buy 100 of the joint strike fighters, the results say the strike fighters have inferior acceleration, climb, turn capacity and a lower top speed than Russian and Chinese fighters.

In short it says the strike fighter can't turn, can't climb and can't run. It says the US fighter which could outdo the Russian made flankers is the F 22 raptor, which the United States bans from foreign sales." (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Dougal Longfoot

Interesting debate going on here... I suggest the above article be incorporated into the main article and the controversial tages removed, once a couple of more rebuttale articles are posted. (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The Australian Defence Minister has said that the briefing provided by the department satisfied him that the reports of the exercise in Hawaii were wrong and that it "left me still confident that the capability being promised by the JSF team is more than sufficient to meet Australia's needs": [14] As such, there's clearly strong bi-partisan support for the F-35 and devoting much attention to the concerns of ill-informed backbenchers in the article is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I head an interview with him on ABC this morning, he also clearly indicated that they were asking for more information from the manufacturers and that if the F-35 didn't meet the claims / specs it is supposed too and / or goes over budget, then the purchase would be re-examined. He also clearly signalled that the report referred to had rasied serious questions about the F-35's performance which had YET to be fully answered. (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The ABC's report on the story quotes the Minister as saying that "Australia remains a very enthusiastic member of the JSF development team" and that he sees no need to sign up to buy the planes just yet [15] Nick Dowling (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is another qoute: "Despite the poor results of the recent Pacific Vision Wargames exercise in Hawaii, Mr Fitzgibbon said he was convinced the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was the right aircraft for Australia"[16] here is another one: "There's no doubt in my mind that if the JSF team deliver all the capability they have been promising, then the JSF will be just the right aircraft for Australia, and will deliver all the capability we need to maintain air combat superiority" (my emphasis added). Now is or is not this article referring to concerns over performance? does this not also clearly indicate poor results? (although the minister would not reveal exactly what they were) His statements also clearly indicate that Australia is committed to the JSF IF (IF) it matches it's promises. No undue weight is being given to the orignal report, and the edit is a good starting point for documenting valid concerns over the performance of the F-35 held not only by Australia, but also by experts in the USA. (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Transcript of interview can be found here: Some key qoutes of interest:

CONOR DUFFY: The Rand Corporation in the United States prepared an analysis of the JSF's ability to match rival Russian and Chinese Jets in close range combat. The results were damning. The report says the JSF is: "'Double inferior' relative to modern Russian/Chinese fighter designs in visual range combat." And has "Inferior acceleration, inferior climb, inferior sustained turn capability." It concludes that the JSF: "Can't turn, can't climb, can't run."

(my emphasis added)

Here is anonther:

In late August Peter Goon, who is in regular correspondence with Defence, wrote to the head of the Defence Material Organisation, Dr Steve Gumley, and the Defence Minister, saying that the results of Pacific Vision were disastrous for the JSF. PETER GOON (except from email to Dr Steve Gumley, August 28, 2008): Red Force dominated the exercise going up against two versions of Blue Force, both of which were roundly defeated. One way the Red Force summation of events has been described is that '... it was like clubbing baby seals'. "In addition to this rather blunt Red Force summation, the war gaming exercise demonstrated the JSF aircraft were next to useless while the Super Hornets of both Blue forces were seriously and significantly overmatched (a.k.a. 'useless')."Hundreds of Blue Force aircraft were lost in the first twenty minutes."

Again, with due respect to some of the other authors, it is clear that there are concerns about performance - these have been expressed by the Australian minister and Rand corporation. It is also clear that despite this, Australia remains committed to purchasing the F-35 IF (IF) they meet the performance requirements. I can't for the life of me see how this information cannot be included in the article under a section called 'concerns over performance'. Wikipedia is a living and evolving encyclopedia, as more information come to light it might well be that these rumours are proved true and countries will abandon the F-35 in droves. Conversely the opposite may also become true, in which case all the evidence so far collected in this section as it stands can simply be consigned to a single line about history of critism or something like that. (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you happen to have a link to this communication between Goon & Gumley? I haven't come across it and would be interested in learning what was said. TIA, Askari Mark (Talk) 01:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
It looks like its all copy / paste from --Dual Freq (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
It can probably be consigned to a few lines right now. All the deatils of who said what are really irrelevant as long as they are in the sources. Rember, this article is not about opposition party politicians in Australia, so it's really not releveant that we include everything quote the've made on the subject. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and it's not our job to cover everything said on a subject. I do believe at this point there needs to be some mention of this in the article, but I disagree with the sections current placement and content. However, having several paragraphs of statements and quotes as if the report is absolutely true, and one brief sentence that "The F-35 has also come under critism in the USA regarding it's performance most of which has been dismissed by the Pentagon and manufacturer" is extremely misleading, as the LM/USAF reports specifically have completly denied the veracity of ALL the rumors, including the ones reported in Australia. That's why Nick is right to mention Undue weight - the section is terribly lopsided as currently written.
Please understand that military aircraft, especially combat aircraft, are very complex machines. All military aricraft developed in the past 30 years, anywhere in the world, have long development times and cost overuns. Just this past week, EADS/Airbus reported it is going to ask the nations purchasing the A400M not to charge it for breaches in contract regarding delivery schedules, or it will lose money until the 180th aircraft delivered, IIRC. And these are actual production contracts invloved, while to my knowledge no such contracts exist yet in the F-35 program. Also, if one take a look at the JAS 39 Gripen article, one can see that the JAS 39 generated a lot of controversy during its 15-20 year development. Yet that is the aircraft that the Nethelands, Norway, and a few other F-35 partners are looking at as an alternative. It takes time for programs to mature, and modern military aircraft need alot of development time due to their complexity. Finally, please remember that "Pacific Vision" was a simulation - no actual aircraft were involved whatsoever. This also means that if problems with the F-35 were revealed - whatever they actually were, which was not revealed - there is still plenty of time to try to incorporate fixes. And it might even be that the data the simulations were based on were old or faulty, and that there is nothing wrong with the F-35 at all. So while we don't want to bury our heads in the sand and ignore serious problems, it does no good to stick our necks out with obscure politicians trying to make a name for themselves either!
When you're ready to write a well-reasoned section that give due weight to each side neutrally, let us know. We "other authors" actually can help, and together we can make sure both points of view are presented in a neutral way. - BillCJ (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be arrogant and dismissive - i understand about the development times but i think you are being blinkered and giving undue weight to the manufacturers and pentagons dismissals of the critism. How is the manufacturer denying critism of the plane not a conflict of interest? how are informed buyers expressing concerns undue weight? Finally, nowhere have i said i wanted all those qoutes to be included in the article, they were merley to illustrate the point that 'some authors' (i.e the two of you) are cherry picking the positives and glossing over the negatives, thus giving undue weight to the positive spin by the manufacturer. Please act in good faith and take a step back and you'll realise that a simple paragraph outling that (a) there are concerns about the aircraft performance (b) the pacific vision simulation brought many of these to media attention (c) some buyers and development partners have also expressed concern and (d) industry insiders (i.e Janes etc) have also expresed concerns (e) these have been denied by the pentagon and manufacturer. That's a tiny bit in the overall article, balanced, and when all the other material is considered, is harly shifting the weight of the article in it's entirity to a negative stance now is it? don't be so dismissive of us little 'ol IP editors, we may actually know a thing or two about the subject matter, and more importantly, wikipedia. (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This is me being arrogant and dismissive: I think we've had enough from users with a hidden agenda trying to be disruptive to make a point, and I now support removing the entire disputed section. - BillCJ (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC) (The precseeding was intended as a sarcastic response to an IP's "arrogant and dismissive" response to my thoughtful, somewhat pedantic statements. - BillCJ (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC) )
May I point out that if you read the current article it is a fairly positive about the plane in a toys-for-boys POV kind of way. You could easily call that a hidden agenda (although less transparently pushed) by many editors. Arnoutf (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
No, you may not. I could easily call myself a millionaire, doesn't make it true (though I sure wish it did!) Please don't confuse a detailed description of a product and its (intended) capabilites as praise of a product. The intent of this kind of article is to present the facts in a neutral way, though the sheer amount of the facts might seem a bit POV. If there's something that's too positive, non-factual, or non-neutral in the article, tag it/fix it/remove it! But we don't "balance" that by adding verified reports of unverifiable rumor and criticism without presenting the entire story - that's not neutral either! And for anyone to dismiss anything a company says in its defense as automatically a COI is just as badd as accepting anything a politician says based soley on unverified rumors from people who may not even exist! In WP's version of Neutrality, we don't chose what we like about competing claims, but we present both views as neutrally as possible, if possible. It is true these critical reports have been made, but there is no proof that these are true as yet. To suppress the counter-views on the grounds that the rest of the article is "positive" is also bad, and certainly not neutral. - BillCJ (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Fact there is some dissatisfaction among the partners (e.g. Australia).
Facts: the F35 is later, more expensive (both in purchase and in maintenance), resulting in fewer counterorders, heavier. Compared to the original promises to partners.
Unconfirmed reports: it is less stealthy and less capable of dogfights compared to the original promises to partners.
All things relating to the design section (which also explicitly mentions it is an improvement). Placing nothing about this in the design/partners section is not neutral; and such remarks cannot be removed without introducing an overly positive point of view. Arnoutf (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Then present those facts is a neutral way, including the relevant counter-arguments to each point made, and the fact that such problems are normal for modern combat aircraft. I have no problem rewriting it to do that, but have not been able to take the time to write it yet because of unrelated demands on my time, but I do intend to do so. - BillCJ (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you hit on an interesting issue. Yes such problems maybe normal for modern combat aircraft, but many of the partners (e.g. Australia, the Netherlands and others) have developed no modern combat aircraft of their own, nor have they participated in the development of one before (previous purchases were based on fully developed versions as far as I know) - So have no first hand experience with this. This made the overspending (normal as it may be) breach of international agreements, rather then of national agreements. I think that makes this case special. I also agree it should be worded neutral. Perhaps a structure for the paragrah roughly following: - F35 does not meet its original specs by A,B,C,. While this has become customary in the development of modern combat aircraft, these problems have lead to debate with several of the partners who have no recent experience being involvement in the development of modern combat aircraft. - I think that would be a fairly way of putting it; does it seem acceptable to you? Arnoutf (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see a reference about the F-35 being still overweight in 2008. They spent about 1.5 years on weight savings a few years ago. That's one reason why the program is delayed. Update: weight reduction 1, 2, 3 -Fnlayson (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
What I read is that for the A version (non-carrier) they partially compensated by installing a more powerful engine to armament etc. to specs (and not to increase unit price too much). This solution keeps weight above original estimate, and performance at about the original level, except for fuel efficiency, going down (heaver plane, more powerful engine - more fuel use). But some homework for me to find that reference back Arnoutf (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
"Fact there is some dissatisfaction among the partners (e.g. Australia)" I don't think that's a 'fact' at all as both the Australian Government and the opposition both strongly support the F-35 and it's a near certainty that Australia will buy about 100 of the aircraft (it's even listed on the RAAF's website as being one of Australia's future aircraft: [17]). Substantive criticism is limited to a small group of self-appointed experts (eg Air Power Australia) and retired RAAF officers who are pushing for Australia to buy an aircraft which simply isn't available (the Government approached the US for F-22s earlier this year, and it was confirmed that they can't be exported). The F-35 has received strong support from the RAAF and many other think-tanks (eg, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, and the Kokoda Foundation - which wants Australia to buy 200 F-35s!). The Defence Minister's comments seem to be being missinterpreted by some editors - the opposition is demanding that he sign Australia up to buy F-35s right now, but he is saying that while the F-35 appears to be the right plane, the prudent course of action is to delay signing the contract until next year (as was planned by the opposition when they were in Government) as there's no advantage in singing up now and development work is yet to be completed. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
RAND has issued a press statement denying the Australian reports that its analysis of the recent war game covered the F-35's performance: [18]. This seems to be much ado about nothing, other than being another example of the woeful quality of the Australian media's defence correspondents. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The infamous RAND report is available at It basically says nothing about the F-35 and simply points out that lots & lots of enemy planes could force their way past the F-22 by forcing it to use up all its missiles. Hardly surprising. I would like to remove the mention of the RAND report as it is not what people think it is. Pmw2cc (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's say enough about F-35 and sometimes should you read between the line and a little bit carefully. E-Paper avaible here [19] You should read the paragraphs about Mie and Rayleigh resonace, Page 17/67. Maybe the points about IRST and QWIP (first operational on Pirat/Eurofighter) then the points about VHF-AESA etc.etc. --HDP (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

“Clubbed like baby seals” controversy – the back story

As I originally observed, all we had to do was wait a few days and the full story would begin to come out. My call was spot on. Since the RAND presentation has now come into the public spotlight – it’s been posted on Stephen Trimble’s blog, “The DEW Line” (Trimble is a respected, award-winning aerospace journalist for Flight International) – people can now read it and make up their own minds regarding what the The West Australian claimed was a demonstration based on “highly-classified simulated dogfights” that proved the JSF had been “comprehensively beaten … [by] Russian-built Sukhoi fighters”.[20] It also means I can fill in more of the back story as an illustration of why I don’t believe in jumping at the first chance to believe something controversial appearing in the general press.

The August 2008 Pacific Vision conference at Hickam AFB, Hawaii was indeed a top secret simulation, but it was really focused on logistics issues, not a full-fledged wargame with combat missions being flown. In fact, as Maj. Gen. Davis (USAF) noted, it “did not even address air-to-air combat effectiveness.”[21] The only time air combat effectiveness was addressed at the conference was in an unclassified (but “For Official Use Only / Sensitive”) RAND briefing entitled “Air Combat Past, Present and Future” presented by two RAND analysts, John Stillion and Scott Perdue. Despite the title – and as RAND’s Director Andrew Hoehn has affirmed – it was not an “attempt[ed] detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat”, much less an assessment of the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, per se.[22] If it had been, it would have been performed and presented by a different organization within RAND.

The presenters are from an “East Coast RAND” office that focuses mainly on strategic and policy issues; detailed aircraft performance assessments are conducted by a “West Coast RAND” office whose members actually have clearances that would permit them access to actual performance data of the F-35, as well as competitor and threat aircraft like the various Sukhoi fighters. These specialists not only had no participation in the preparation of the material that was presented, but they didn’t know about it until everyone else started hearing about it afterwards. So much for the “proof” that the F-35 had been “comprehensively beaten” by Sukhoi fighters. The actual aim of the presentation was to provide a Gedankenspiel – through a reductio ad absurdum approach (with Pk’s of 1.00 and zero for Blue and Red, respectively) – to question the future validity of certain assumptions regarding (their) concept of the primary requirements for achieving and maintaining air superiority in the Pacific region. Their assessments (to the degree they are valid) have an obvious bearing on airbasing and logistics in the area – the subject of the Pacific Vision wargame.

The main presentation ended with slide 54. The only place the F-35 is mentioned is in the side excursion on slide 52. So where did the “clubbing baby seals” results come from? It is my understanding that during the Q&A, two of the backup slides were shown: numbers 78 and 79. Here, in a nutshell, is the “proof” that the JSF had been “comprehensively beaten … [by] Russian-built Sukhoi fighters”. However, it’s not a RAND analysis, but rather comes from Dr. Carlo Kopp’s and Mr. Peter Goon’s Air Power Australia (APA) think tank. (Other material and data in the pitch also come courtesy of the APA.) I am told the RAND authors have cordial relations with and are much enamored with Kopp’s and Goon’s work; these two gentlemen are avid proponents of the view that Australia must have the F-22 – and only the F-22 – and that its F-111s should be retained until they are available. They have published an extensive corpus of analysis to “prove” that all other alternatives would have a “disastrous impact” on the viability of Australian airpower.[23] The “assessment” that Sukhois would “club F-35s like baby seals” was a verbal aside (obviously made in jest) by one of the presenters. A catchy phrase like that made relative to an issue of great contention in Australia was of course irresistible to the press (which apparently was not about to risk losing such a good headline by responsible fact-checking).

As far as a proper analysis goes, this is not a very good one inasmuch as it appears to have been written expressly to come to the given conclusion. Although it does make some valid points, there are so many flaws in the assumptions, analytical approach and even data, that it is surprising that RAND approved it for release in the first place. The basic scenario, with six F-22s providing air defense for all of Taiwan against three regiments of Sukhoi fighters is both arbitrary and ridiculous. There’s no reason that no more than 24 F-22s could be based at Guam, and even if the closer-in bases were unavailable, there is an open question of where the U.S. Navy is with its floating bases – not to mention the RoCAF. As for the Red side, why three regiments? Why not two – or four? This assumption is fundamental to the outcome, and I have the sneaking suspicion that several force ratios were examined until 12:1 gave "just the right result." And just what is realistic about a 14-AAM loadout? As for problems with the data, take a look at the radar detection range chart for Russian search radars on slide 18. Please note that on the far right, the detection ranges are leveling out to a non-zero minimum. This means that even if a target aircraft’s radar signature was as small as an atom – or even an electron – it would still be detectable at something like 10 nmi. The detection ranges, by the way, are uncritically based on Russian companies’ claims concerning their products. Overall, as far as the quality of this assessment goes, if I were to give it a grade, I’d give it no better than a ‘D’ on its own merits (for its ability to effectively convey the insights it was supposed to portray). Askari Mark (Talk) 21:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that analysis. Kopp and Goon also want the Royal Australian Air Force to be structured to defend the Australian mainland from attacks by Chinese and Indian Backfire bombers. Of course, neither country has Backfires and Australia has always had a good relationship with India and has a rapidly improving relationship with China, but who cares about that? While they're good at getting into the media, my understanding is that they're regarded as being a bad joke by the RAAF and there's no evidence to suggest that they've had any impact on Australian defence policy, despite years of spamming parliamentary inquiries with bloated submissions. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Mark, thanks. So where do we go from here? Despite our efforts to develop a more neutral version of the controversy section (removal having failed), the proponents have not been that receptive to including complete point-by-point counter arguments. I'm not sure anything less than complete mea culpa from ABC, et al, will be seen as valid (if that!). If Australian popular media is half as bad as its US counterpart, we shouldn't hold our breath.
Another question: Why are Kopp and Goon soon keen to get the ADF to buy the F-22? Will they be getting a commision or something from LM on each export F-22 sold?? It just seems odd that they are pushing the F-22 so hard when it isn't likely to be exported at all, and it's not a full strike fighter as currently offered. Seems to me that the changes necessary to give the F-22 full strike capability - avionics, sensors, etc. - will make it even more costly than it already is, and there probably wouldn't be any other export orders for an F/A-22 to help bring the costs back down. Are the questions even worth the effort to answer?? - BillCJ (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
You’re welcome, gentlemen. I thought it important in this instance to capture an example of the “real world” behind press reports and political posturing. It underscores the wisdom of Wikipedia’s insistence on NPOV, since we often are not in a position where we can feel comfortable we have the “Truth” – and the weight of reporting is not a reliable indicator where controversy promulgated by the press or politicians is concerned. Of course, even where we actually can be 99% sure of the Truth, it’s difficult to find suitable sources to document it per WP:V; although I’m quite confident I’ve got my facts straight above, that doesn’t change the fact that it’s WP:OR for Wikipedia’s purposes.
Bill asks the key question, though. The challenge lies in reconciling WP:Notability with WP:Undue. The easiest thing would be to write a separate article on fighter acquisition controversies in Australia; I can readily assure you there’s no dearth of sources for that! As for this article, developing even a basic context for understanding the issues would be undue weight – and probably take more space than a general discussion of the controversies of cost and schedule. And the “Pacific Vision” controversy isn’t the only critique out there. In any case, as Arnouft has rightly pointed out, this article presently does not address those issues, and it certainly should (in an NPOV way) – after all, what recent major weapon program has never had controversies over these (or performance)? I think the way forward is to give a fair, balanced, NPOV coverage of these issues; it’s the lack of this that attracts sensationalist press coverage as a remedy.
As for Kopp’s motivations, I don’t know the man personally. I assume he just seriously wants what he believes is best for his country. Oddly, I have heard a story about commissions, but I find it hard to credit; in fact, I find it preposterous. I don’t know Australian law, but I would figure that if he were shilling for LM (or anyone else) for personal gain, then he’d have to register himself as a lobbyist. The fact that he presses so strongly for the F-22, yet trashes the F-35 seems to me to clear him of the charge. Anyhow, that’s more an issue for the F-22 Raptor article. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that an article should be created on the Australian combat aircraft procurement program or similar. I'd make a start on it, but I'm busy preparing to go on holiday! Kopp seems to be driven by his view that RAAF needs air dominance aircraft to counter the threat of advanced Russian aircraft operated by China and India and regards this as being more important than ground attack capabilities. Why he's focusing on aircraft which Australia simply can't buy (the F-22) and which would be almost impossible to develop (upgraded F-111s) is beyond me. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, for such a sharp guy, it’s hard to understand his devotion to his monotonic theme. Perhaps he feels he has sufficient influence that if he remains vocal enough for long enough then the Aussie “powers that be” will see the light and flat out demand the F-22 … or else what? And why no “Plan B”? ’Tis a mystery. An article on the Aussie controversies would be interesting. I’ve long thought it would be really neat to be able to present how these real-world controversies arise, are handled, and then resolved, but it’s a challenge to do in Wikipedia inasmuch as it leans toward OR on the one side and a 50,000-foot overview on the other. Anyhow, it’s not something I’m likely to be free to work on this year. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Pentagon approves sale to Israel

The DOD has approved the sale of 25 F-35s to the Israeli Air Force, which will probably make Israel the first country (besides the US) to have them in operation. I think something should be added to the acticle. Jerusalem Post article —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

While I'm sure that the basic facts are right, that article seems confused over whether Israel will be first in line - it wrongly says that this is the first foreign sale of the F-35 and then goes on to note that eight other countries are participating in the F-35s development. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I added about the sale of 25 with options for 50 more using this article. The Israel section already mentions a possible 2012 delivery and that Israel could be one of the first nations to receive it (note one of wording). -Fnlayson (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Lift-fan image

Image:F-L3 lift fan.jpg link is broken; went just above the Paris Air Show lift fan photo. Superfluous anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the link. The image was copyrighted, and as such had to be removed from Commons, which only takes free images. - BillCJ (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Re-write of Australian section

The section of this article on Australia's involvement is presently a bit of a mess. It isn't in chronological order, contains outdated information and gives undue weight to passing rumors in the media. I've drafted the following replacement paragraphs, and would appreciate any comments and changes before using them to replace the current content. In particular, I'd appreciate any comments on the paragraph discussing the Australian debate over the F-35 as much of this has been based on rumors which have subsequently turned out to be wrong or simply bad reportage. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Australia's then-Minister for Defence Dr. Brendan Nelson signing the JSF Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development Memorandum of Understanding in December 2006

Australia is participating in the F-35's development, but has not yet placed an order for the aircraft. It is expected that about 100 F-35As will be ordered to replace the Royal Australian Air Force's (RAAF's) F/A-18 Hornet and F-111 aircraft.[1]

The Australian Government announced that it would buy into the F-35's development on 22 June 2002.[1] This decision ended the competition to replace Australia's F/A-18 Hornet and F-111 aircraft before it formally began, with other aircraft manufacturers being advised that it would not be worth submitting proposals.[2] The Government argued that joining the F-35 program at an early stage would allow Australia to influence the F-35's development, provide the Government with information on the aircraft's suitability and generate savings of over $600 million if an order for F-35s is eventually placed. Australia formally signed up to the F-35 Systems Development and Demonstration phase as a Level 3 participant on 30 October 2002.[1]

Satisfied with the F-35's progress, the Government gave 'first pass' initial approval to the project under which F-35s will be acquired in November 2006, with a decision on whether to order the aircraft being scheduled for late 2008. Following this initial approval, Australia signed the JSF Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development Memorandum of Understanding which commits Australia to the next phase of the F-35's development on 13 December 2006.[3] In October 2006, the deputy chief of the Air Force, Air Vice Marshal John Blackburn, publicly stated that the RAAF had considered suitable aircraft which could be acquired if the F-35 was delayed, but that that such aircraft were not believed to be necessary on the basis of the F-35 program's progress at the time.[4]

Concerns over the F-35s delivery schedule developed in Australia during 2007.[3] In February the Minister for Defence announced that a risk mitigation strategy which involved obtaining F/A-18F Hornets was being developed to prevent a gap in the RAAF's air combat capability if the F-35 program was delayed.[5] This strategy was adopted, and an order for 24 F/A-18Fs was announced on 6 March 2007. These aircraft are scheduled to enter service with the RAAF in 2010 and be fully operational by 2012.[6]

Following the 2007 Australian Federal Election the new Australian Labor Party Government launched an inquiry into the replacement of the RAAF's air combat capability.[6] The party had expressed concerns over the F-35's adequacy while it was in opposition, and proposed acquiring F-22s to replace or supplement the RAAF's F-35 force.[7] An approach was made to the US Government for F-22s in early 2008, but was not successful as these aircraft are not available for export.[8] In April 2008 it was reported that the air combat review had found that the F-35 was the most suitable aircraft for Australia.[9] In October 2008 it was reported that the Australian Government may order 75 F-35s instead of the 100 originally planned due to the impact of the global financial crisis and a large long-term funding gap in the Defence budget.[10] The Government is currently planning to make a final decision on acquiring F-35s in 2009.[11]

There has been debate in Australia over whether the F-35 is the most suitable aircraft for the RAAF. It has been claimed that the F-35's performance is inferior to Russian-built aircraft operated by countries in Australia's region, that the F-35 cannot meet the RAAF's long range strike requirement and that delays to the F-35 program will result in the RAAF experiencing a shortage of combat aircraft.[12] The RAAF believes that the F-35 will meet Australia's needs, however,[13] and both of Australia's major political parties currently support purchasing the aircraft, though they differ over when the order should be placed.[14][15]

  1. ^ a b c Wilson, Stewart (2008). "F-35 Lightning II: Future RAAF?". Aero Australia. Sydney: Chevron Publishing Group (20): p.30. ISSN 1448-8086. 
  2. ^ Borgu, Aldo (2004). A Big Deal. Australia's future air combat capability. Canberra: Australian Strategic Policy Institute. pp. p.1. ISBN 1920722254. 
  3. ^ a b Wilson, Stewart (2008). "F-35 Lightning II: Future RAAF?". Aero Australia. Sydney: Chevron Publishing Group (20): p.33. ISSN 1448-8086. 
  4. ^ Blenkin, Max (2006-10-10). "RAAF 'won't need' interim jet". Retrieved 2008-11-09. 
  5. ^ "Joint Strike Fighter" (Press release). The Hon. Dr Brendan Nelson, Minister for Defence. 2008-02-01. Retrieved 2008-11-09. 
  6. ^ a b Wilson, Stewart (2008). "F-35 Lightning II: Future RAAF?". Aero Australia. Sydney: Chevron Publishing Group (20): p.34. ISSN 1448-8086. 
  7. ^ "Beazley calls for caution on fighter jets purchase". ABC News. 2006-06-27. Retrieved 2008-11-10.  and "New plane flaws compromise defence: Labor". ABC News. 2006-06-24. Retrieved 2008-11-10. 
  8. ^ "Australian minister says he wants option to buy US F-22 Raptor". International Herald Tribune. 2008-02-23. Retrieved 2008-11-09. 
  9. ^ Walters, Patrick (2008-04-28). "Joint strike fighter RAAF's choice". The Australian. Retrieved 2008-11-09. 
  10. ^ Walters, Patrick and Norington, Brad (2008-10-18). "Cash crisis hits purchase of strike fighters". The Australian. Retrieved 2008-11-03. 
  11. ^ "Acquiring Leading Edge Air Combat Capability". Defence Material Organisation. Retrieved 2008-11-09. 
  12. ^ "Warring over aircraft". The National Interest. ABC Radio National. Retrieved 2008-11-10.  |first1= missing |last1= in Authors list (help)
  13. ^ Walters, Patrick (2008-05-13). "Jetfighter F-35 JSF backed for RAAF, despite blowouts". The Australian. Retrieved 2008-11-10. 
  14. ^ "Govt should be defending Joint Strike Fighters: Opposition". ABC News. 2008-09-24. Retrieved 2008-11-10. 
  15. ^ "Fighter criticism 'unfair' and 'misrepresented'". ABC News. 2008-09-25. Retrieved 2008-11-10. 


  • Looks good to me. The F/A-18E/F order date info is way off. It was ordered in May 2007 and the new government decided to keep the order in 2008. See F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, RAAF section for info and references. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The March 2008 was a dumb typo - I've changed this to say that the order was announced on 6 March 07. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
As there have been no objections, I've just posted the new section in the article. Further changes to it are, of course, very welcome! Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I hope this is how I contribute, hope this works. Anyway, something on the Australian issue. This year the US secretary of defense re-opened dabte insome quaters in Aus I believe, by saying he had no problem with the Export Ban exempting an Australian purchase if the Defense Department can get the Congress to agree. This was reported on radio and TV back home I believe, and says so in the F-22 article right here on Wiki. Did this occur? If so was it before or after Australia asked for the right to make an export application (as stated in this article), if after, shouldnt this be mentioned in the Australian section, as all indicators have been on this issue, that if the Australian Govt. does decide to persue, and can aquire, f22s, it will decrease the number of f35s brought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apis4 (talkcontribs) 16:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Error in "Concerns over performance"?

The article states that: "However, Kopp's analysis considers only the shape of the aircraft, whereas the effect of radar absorbent material is ignored."

But Kopps analysis states that: "The -30 dBSM threshold for "safe" is based on the assumption that application of an absorbent coating or laminate will reduce RCS by a further 10 dB or more thus driving the RCS contribution of the lower fuselage into the VLO or "genuine stealth" category."

It thus seems that Kopp is taking RAM coatings into acccount? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossig (talkcontribs) 18:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It does seem Kopp considered the effect of RAM. Also the statement above was unreferenced as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot the reference: 00:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Mossig (talk)

See also

This article needs some clean up. Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#.22See_also.22_section. Most of the planes are already discussed in the body and have a fair number of links. The Royal Navy other than wishing to deploy a certain number of planes, lacks any major contributing information directly related to the aircraft, its history and development, or impact upon current events, etc. The article is getting long and could use some subsections I agree. Mkdwtalk 07:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The "See also" section follows the layout recommended by WP:AIR/PC. If you have disagreements with this, please take up the issue at WT:AIR/PC. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The link Royal Navy in the 21st century does not appear previously in this article. The similar Royal Navy link does. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I was looking at that. From what I could tell, other than the fact they were intending to deploy several of the aircraft into their service, I didn't really see the need for it to be a 'See also'. Worthy of mention in the body definitely, but in my experience, as well as the WP:AIR see also guideline I was just informed about, it said to keep it fairly tight. Things like History of F-35 and lists etc. Mkdwtalk 08:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to jump in and help with cleaning-up the article. Fresh eyes are always helpful in spotting areas the regular editors may miss. And no, I don't seriously think you were stalking me. My sarcasm went a bit overboard! - BillCJ (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Top Speed Should Be in The Stat Box

The top speed should be in the stat box in the upper right part of the article. It's just something people want to know about and should be easily accesible. Other things like maximum range and maximum altitude should also be included. Sean7phil (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Links to the PAK-FA

Please don't put links to the PAK-FA under the 'comparable aircraft' section. The F-35 has seen its first and small-scale production; the PAK-FA hasn't even been revealed yet nor had its maiden flight. No one even knows what it looks like, nonetheless the specifications of the aircraft itself. (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added the India MCA because it is very similar to JSF in design and capabilities. Both of them are 5th gen fighters. Both are not primarily air-superiority fighters and more on the the strike and multi-role side. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


I recently spoke to a Canadian Forces Pilot who is a very close friend of mine. He recently took part in testing of the aircrafts electronics, in a simulated Aircraft. He told me that the aircraft (in simulation, and real life) uses ETOS to allow the pilot to "see through" the aircraft. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There's not much here on EOTS, and I thought it might even warrant it's own page? Opinions?Daemonllama78 (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It probably could use an own article, but be sure not to mix it up with the AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (which could also use an own article, and is much more revolutionary). The "see through the floor" function for instance is realised by the DAS as far as I know, not the EOTS. - Berkoet (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the F-35 not a 5th generation fighter?

I've been getting alot of discussion about F-35 is not really 5th generation, it's more like 4.5th generation. Do we have the reputable source to prove that F-35 is 5th generation? --Korsentry 03:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talkcontribs)

Have you looked through the article and checked the references there? -Fnlayson (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, read through this and tell me what you think. Blueteamguy

Noise Problem and resonance

The F-35 is between 10 and 18db louder as a F-15, that mean linear between 2 and 3 times louder. [[24]] Page 13. Resonance [25] --HDP (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Linear is a useless way to talk about sound. Nevertheless it is even more noisy than F16. In the densily populated Netherlands this is becoming something of an issue, especially striking is the removal of all reference to noise levels between the original order for F16 replacements by the Dutch Airforce (the organisation admits to be fans of the F35) and the current list of criteria (against which the F35 will be measured). This is currently causing some discussion in Dutch politics see e.g. [26][27][28] Arnoutf (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The F-35 is so loud that no adequate equipment aviable for ear protection. "Military Equipment Noise Costs $900 Million and Veterans' Hearing" [29]--HDP (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The F-35 is going to be a heck of an airshow performer with noise figures like that.Ratsbew (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Too risky to buy according to GAO official

Dutch newspaper Volkskrant reports [30] that 2 Dutch MP's (Krista van Velzen Socialistische Partij an oppositian party, and Joël Voordewind (ChristenUnie) a government party) have discussed the purchase of F35 by the Netherlands with Michael Sullivan of the GAO. According to both MP's Sullivan stated that with regard to F35 it is ‘Too risky to buy now’; ‘fly before you buy’; and ‘it’s better to wait’. It is officially denied that these statements were made. Just to keep track of, if this has follow up it maybe relevant for the article. Arnoutf (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Following on from this, today Volkskrant reports [31] that according to the US Goverment Accountability Office the project is likely to be delayed for another 1-3 years; and is likely to overspend yet another 2.4-7.4 billion US$. Fixed prices will not be agreed before 2013 (every party that signs a contract earlier apparently has to agree to increased prices after the contract has been signed). [32][33] Arnoutf (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The Navy Times (also Army Times, Air Force Times) is a rag. If you want to cite GAO articles I suggest linking to the actual GAO reports which are available on their web site: (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Engine Cooling System?

We know that the harriers run on a Rolls-Royce Pegasus Engine, and that engine uses water to cool it while its in VTOL mode. Does the F-35 have a cooling system, or does that lift fan act as one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss9999 (talkcontribs) 23:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the Pegasus uses Water injection to produce a higher thrust rating for short periods, not "water cooling" to keep the engine cool as in a water-cooled reciprocating engine. The water brings down the temperature of the compressed air before it enters the combustion chambers, IIRC, allowing the engine to produce greater thrust for a short period. - BillCJ (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Water injection is a fascinating method of getting additional power out of a jet engine. About 10 to 15 percent additional thrust an be gained by injecting water, or a mixture of water an alcohol, into the engine, either at the compressor air inlet or at some other point in the engine, such as the diffuser section or the burners. When a liquid coolant is added, thrust or power augmentation is obtained principally by increasing the mass flow through the engine. Water injection does two things directly. It cools the air mass and maintains the same pressure by adding molecules to the mass flow. Obviously, if there is little cooling effect, only a few molecules can be added to the mass flow. Thus, on a cold day, only a small increase in thrust can be obtained by water injection, but on a hot day a sizable thrust increase may be realized. Not all of the increase in thrust caused by water injection is due to the increase in mass flow. There is also a cycle effect. The increase in air mass causes a tendency to slow down the compressor. The fuel control system adds fuel to keep the compressor going at the same speed. The resulting increase in heat energy hits the turbines and the compressor is speed up. When the compressor speeds up, it gives a greater weight of airflow. The end result is the realization of a greater thrust increase by increased mass flow rate than is obtained by the addition of water molecules.Ratsbew (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Another minor point to add is that water injection allows a higher fuel flow. The extra fuel adds to the exhaust mass but this effect is negligible at best.Ratsbew (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


Range: A: 1,200 nmi; B: 900 nmi; C: >1,200 nmi (A: 2,220 km; B: 1,670 km; C: >2,220 km) on internal fuel

What mission profile is this intended to reflect? Surely not interdiction?-- (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Transformers: Rise of the Fallen: Breakaway as an F-35

I think it's worth mentioning that one of the characters from a big budget movie line actually turns into an F-35, but if it's debateable, I'd like to hear both sides of the fence. Please post your support or objections for the inclusion of this information here. Mathewignash (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like trivia to me. Anyway the quoted articles show it is not sure it will be in the movie at all. And (bad jokes follow) what do you mean big budget movie for 200 Million Dollars you can buy only about 1 single F35; If it is big budget anywatY I rahter hope they pay copyright to the F35 developers for use of their design; they could use a few billion Euro's to eliminate overspending in the program.... ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
While that may be funny, $200,000,000 a higher amount of money for a film budget, compared to other movies. Comparing it to the cost of a piece of military equipment isn't apples and apples. What you are doing would be like saying someone bought a $5,000 camera to take a picture of a new car, then saying car cost more, so it isn't a costly camera. The camera is costly for a camera. Mathewignash (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Adding that now would be violate WP:NOTCRYSTAL, since the movie has not been released. Also, the F-35 would need to have a major or notable role in the movie and reference(s) to support that (see WP:AIRPOP). -Fnlayson (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Just to point out, Hasbro has announced Breakaway, so no one is predicting it, it exists. Mathewignash (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
But suggesting the F-35/Breakaway will have a non-minor role in the movie is... -Fnlayson (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has suggested he will a have any particular size roll in the movie, I just said he's there in the movie line. Now I did just read the suggested section "Popular Culture" Wikproject Aircraft articles, and it does seem that only VERY MAJOR appearances should be mentioned under this policy. I don't really agree with that, but it is the current policy and I will of course abide by it. It will have to be enough that the page for Breakaway has the F-35 mentioned on it and a link. Thanks for the input on this subject. Mathewignash (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Not a huge, major role, but much more than a 1 time appearance. The F-22 and V-22 each have a Transformers entry in their articles, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thing is, did anyone count the number of lines Starscream had in the TF movie? Or his total screen time. It wasn't that much. Oh well.... We had a similar debate on the page for Ronald Reagan, because I wanted to mention the FICTIONAL appearances of President, what he had become in popular culture, and the people maintaining it didn't want to mix the reality of the person with fictional appearances. Eventually we started a second page devoted to Reagan the fictional character (meeting Captain America once, or when he gained supper powers in the New Universe comics), as opposed to the actual man. Instead of listing things like this in every page that has a Transformers link for instance, it might be a better thing to start a page or section for Transformers that lists their "real world" alternate modes together. This would keep fictional material from taking over articles on real world things. Mathewignash (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Complete project failure?

From the website defpro: From a political perspective, America needs to start thinking about what alternatives it can offer the British as credible substitutes for the uncompetitive and technically troubled F-35. Is this serious stuff or just journalistic ridiculous rumor? (talk) 10:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There is probably some core of truth. Remember that the USA involved partners in the project with (signed) promises of a high-tech multirole, stealth, superior, light weight, cheap fighter to enter service before 2010....... You can seriously wonder what part of that promise is lived up to; as it seems to become a high-tech multirole fighter with mediocre stealth capability (modern standards), limited superiority (see the discussion about baby seals further on), rather heavy and very expensive fighter that will not be able for large scale introduction in the next few years. If I were counting on this plane to replace my current fleet, I would consider alternatives.... Arnoutf (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd do the same thing if I were buying the A400M, another troubled American product. ;) - BillCJ (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Not American, but indeed I would Arnoutf (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't billed as air superiority, instead multi role light fighter. Huge difference....just to start...and A400M? LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Lots of delays censored!

The article should have a paragraph on program and production delays with the F-35. Wikileaks has just uploaded a year 2006 document which has nominal timetable on page 13, that should help give some honest treatment to this important issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree, the program is delayed, way over budget (43%) and all kinds of promised properties have been skipped. Also see [34] and [35] for sources. It is like going to a salesperson to buy a car, agree on a contract and afterwards learn it will be delivered years later, with a smaller fuel tank, less efficient engine, and a much, much smaller trunk. And all of this for 1.5 times the agreed price. This maybe normal business when making sales inside the US, but this has been positioned as an international collaboration. Arnoutf (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
If you look at Australia's history of purchases from the USA, this is business as normal. Standard fare is for the cost to double, the delivery to be delayed 10 years and the main 'features' we choose the project for to be cancelled.--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hot Air Ingestion

One of the features of the X-35 that impressed me on the tv shows about the JSF competition was how the new fan system (while seemingly complicated) solved the problem that the Harrier had of ingesting its own exhaust resulting in loss of thrust. Yet I can't find any information about it in the competition article, the F-35 article, or the Harrier article. I also had difficulty finding mainstream articles regarding the issue. Am I remembering incorrectly? Is the problem known by another name? Thoughts? Thanks. (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That is touched on in the Design section under Engines. It says "cool exhaust" in there. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
This innovation was first seen on an aircraft manufactured by Yakolev. It has been 'theorised' that the Yakolev contracts with Lockheed Martin after the end of the Cold War were related to the F-35's VTOL engines.--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect or weasel statements in a link

External link (39) (linking to a page Lockheed's website) has the following statement: "...the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed...". The F-35's top speed is 1.6 Mach, while even the old F-104's is above Mach 2 (just not to mention more modern aircrafts, like EFA, Su-27, MiG-31). The statement seems to suggest that the F-35 is faster than any other fighter aicraft in combat configuration (this means with external payload like missiles), and this would be clearly false. (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Top speeds for fighters are without external stores, i.e. clean configuration. The 4th generation fighters will be slower with missiles and other armament mounted externally, while the F-35 in fighter configuration stores its missiles in its weapons bays. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Fnlayson. Most companies presents stats that can only be used for airshows. I.e no external weapons, no extra fuel and so on and thus their claim for speed should not be taken into consideration. The F35's speed *is* with weapons Nastykermit (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC).

The F-35 bays can only store two AMRAAMs and two bombs intern. The F-35 has the drawback of a boxy airframe very faraway from the ideal Sears-Haack body and this make a serious headaches in terms of the Jones supersonic arearule. For additional AIM-9Xs or ASRAAMs need your F-35 an extern rail. Then carry the F-35 B and C it canon in an external pod and not intern. This pod is stealth what disproves the claim that extern stores always unstealthy or only the F-35 can carry an extern pod without the degrade of stealth. Extern stores on the right place can somtimes used as shockbody, at supersonic means more one the right point sometimes less drag. Who think a F-35 is invisble for an IRST-QWIP-Sensor should think again. A QWIP-Sensor is able to detect CO2 (4,3μm) and a Jet-engine produce many CO2 and yes QWIP is avaible. An another point is the temperature in the stagnation point of the Mach cone[36], detectable by QWIP. Who think IRST can not deliver the range should think again, PIATE/IRST can passiv ranging. Or the new 4 color IR-detectors Multi-Color Infrared Alerting Sensor (MIRAS). The Austrian airforce claim Mach 2.35 for its Eurofighter, they carry only two IRIS-T. --HDP (talk) 10:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
So you're telling me that the Mig-31, a 4th generation fighter with a red-line of Mach 3.0 and conformal weapons stores which was restricted to Mach 2.83 to avoid burning its engines out is slower then the Mach 1.6 F-35? What is the 'combat configuration' of a Mig-31 according to Lockheed Martin then? And furthermore; how do many other 4th generation aircraft, capable of Mach 2+ lose close to 1,000km/p/h top speed to drag? I honestly don't think this statement has any place in the world of fact. But perhaps it could be included if stated specifically as an unsubstantiated claim by Lockheed Martin?--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Note the MiG-31 and its MiG-25 predecessor are interceptors, not fighters. That's enough here, since this is not helping to improve the article (WP:Talk page guidelines). -Fnlayson (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Russian-US Connection?

Can the editors involved begin a dialogue on this page rather than engaging in a revert-edit cycle. FwiW Bzuk (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC).

There is a genuine dispute here, but it is not vandalism. Both sides need to refrain from such calls. THere are two competing view points here, and both need to be presented using reliable sources. Much of what has been added of late seems to be synthesis and conjecture from sources, but may not be born out by the sources themselves. The only design similarities between the Yak-41 and the F-35 is the aft vectoring nozzle design, which is only used on the F-35B VSTOL variant. This does not make the two aircraft types related. Denying that Yak developed the F-35, or some part, does not make one a racist! Remember if the Soviets can design the Tu-144, the Buran, etc. without "borrowing" the desings from the West, the reverse should be true too. :) If nothing else, LM probably learned from Yak that using an afterburner in VTOL mode was not the best idea! - BillCJ (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I concur, in that one of the first things to do in a content dispute is to talk it out. I believe there is a legitimate case to be made by both editors but now that the Wp:BRD principle has been invoked, this is the forum that is to be employed. All parties should also be aware that the tenets of a talk page listed at the top of the page equally apply:
  • Be polite
  • Assume good faith
  • Avoid personal attacks
  • Be welcoming
FWiW, please excuse the preachiness, I do know that Wiki editors of some standing already abide by these tenets. Bzuk (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC).
I agree with pretty much all of what is said above. I'll also point out that a source repeatedly offered up by User:Ken keisel states no more than "Lockheed Martin also turned to Russia for technical expertise, purchasing design data from Yakovlev." Now in my book, buying some engineering numbers and technical specs is a far cry from a true "partnership," "joint venture" or whatever another user would like to contend (for whatever reason) took place between the two companies. And this source offers no additional detailed information on the subject. I realize we're supposed to WP:AGF at all times, but this particular line of editing has smelled of a personal agenda from the beginning and really has no notability beyond the brief mention that already covers the topic in this article. It certainly doesn't merit its own section. ViperNerd (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with main points here. I think the X-35 would a be the better place for any detailed history on the Yakovlev connection, since the F-35 is the production derivative of it. The Development section is history/chronology stuff. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Please note that this issue was discussed here at some length a while ago. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Mark! That discussion was before my time here on WP began (though I joined in the month you added the last comments.) - BillCJ (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, that wasn't very long after I joined myself a couple of months earlier — so don't go thinking you're any less of a wikifossil than I am! Askari Mark (Talk) 02:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No, I wasn't thinking you were a Wiki-fossil! Just that I hadn't seen the discussion. Interestingly, though I had been consulting WP for several months sporadically, I actually became serious about joining and contributing after seeing the F-35 article in late July 2006, when the USAF announced the name "Lightning II"! I think it was the FA that day. - BillCJ (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • First, I'm afraid that I have to disagree with BillCJ that ViperNerd actions do not constitute vandalism. Ever since I posted information about Yakovlev's partnering with Lockheed-Martin on the F-22 article ViperNerd has been following me onto every article I have edited, including many that are totally unrelated to this matter, and has placed literally dozens of erroneous tags into these articles. In addition, he has placed a great deal of unsourced and highly speculative information into the articles as well (I'd like to see his explanation for his statement that the DeHaviland Mosquito was designed with "stealth" technology), while challenging sourced information that I have added. This pattern of following an editor around on Wikipedia articles is the equilivant of "spamming".
  • Before I go any farther on this matter I would encourage everyone participating to look up the credentials for Bill Gunston and Yefim Gordon, since these are the two authors and researchers that I am citing, and ViperNerd has expressed some doubt as to their credibility. From what I see they are the two most extensively published experts on Cold War Soviet aircraft. I am asking for a consensus that ViperNerd is incorrect on this matter, and that they are very credible sources.
  • As to the matter itself, the chronology as explained by Gunston and Gordon is as follows; With the fall of the Soviet Union in 1990, virtually all funding for military contracts evaporated. Some companies, like MiG and Tupolev, were well-positioned to survive this collapse as they had a considerable number of foreign operators for their aircraft who would continue to need service and upgrades. In addition, they would be needed to service a large number of their military aircraft still in Soviet service, even if no new aircraft were ordered. Yakovlev was perhaps the least well-positioned to survive this era, as they had very few foreign operators to support, and the main Yakovlev aircraft in Soviet military service was the Yak-38, which was being withdrawn, not upgraded.
  • Yakovlev had effectively bet the company's future on two aircraft, the Yak-141 VTOL fighter that they had expected to replace the Yak-38 in Soviet naval service, and the Yak-130 advanced jet trainer. In a effort to survive, Gunston and Gordon state that in 1991 Yakovlev appealed to virtually every aircraft manufacturer in the world to team with them on these two aircraft. The first to respond was Aermacchi of Italy, who teamed with Yak on the Yak-130, and eventually produced the aircraft for the Italian Air Force. In late 1991 Yakovlev and Lockheed-Martin entered into talks over the Yak-141, and in early 1992 Lockheed-Martin provided between $385 and $400M to Yakovlev for a partnership on the Yak-141. According to Gunston and Gordon, on September 6 1992 Yakovlev announced at the SBAC display at Farnborough that they had partnered on the Yak-141 with an undisclosed western aerospace manufacturer and had received between $385 and $400M in funding. Lockheed-Martin did not publicly disclose the partnership until June 1994. Immediately afterward Lockheed-Martin engineers began working with the design team responsible for the Yak-141 and Yak-43, their focus being on Yakovelv's research into VTOL designs. I have no doubt that Lockheed-Martin knew Yakovlev had an extensive background in testing various VTOL systems, and considering that the joint Strike Fighter contract may prove to be the most lucrative military contract in history, the money and time saved learning from Yakovlev's successes and failures would have been money well-spent, particularly if it kept the information out of the hands of their rival, Boeing.
  • As to just what nuts and bolts Yakovlev added to the F-35, or even if they just saved the F-35 from going down a dead end path, is something that is still classified, and I'm sure Lockheed-Martin will be in no hurry to disclose Yakovlev's contribution. In any case, $400M changed hands and the design team from Yakovlev assisted throughout the F-35's development.
  • As for placing this information on the X-35 or F-35 page, While it is nice to have a separate page on the X-35, the aircraft are essentially the same. The X-35 was merely the prototype. Since Yakovlev's involvement is related to the design of both aircraft it should be added to both articles. Limiting it to the X-35 would be inappropriate, as the same development was carried through to the F-35, and it is in the F-35 that it is in operational use. It would also give the appearance of an attempt to suppress the information by not carrying it over into the article in the section on the development of the production aircraft.
  • Finally, this is on Page 700 Jane's All The World's Aircraft 200-2001 relating to the F-35:

Lockheed-Martin produced 91 percent scale powered model of JAST demonstrator for wind-tunnel tests and in June 1994 revealed agreement with Yakovlev of Russia to purchase data on cancelled Yak-141 programme which employed similar propulsion system.

- Ken keisel (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And I'll ask again on behalf of the group...exactly what SPECIFIC examples of Yakovlev's input into the design of the X-35/F-35 can you offer up from your single source? It still looks like you have nothing of substance to offer on this subject other than drawn inferences and pure speculation on what you THINK might have actually taken place in a highly-classified program based on an amount of money changing hands between two companies. Unless you can offer some concrete proof of Yakovlev's involvement beyond the sale of data concerning the Yak-141/Yak-43, the type of material you are trying to add to this article is NOT NOTABLE and does not belong in an encyclopedic article. Also, neither I nor anyone else has questioned the expertise or credibility of Mr. Gunston or Mr. Gordon, but as you have admitted, even they don't know exactly what the extent of the Lockheed/Yakovlev "partnership" was with regard to the finished product that is the F-35 Lightning II. It would seem from discussion thus far that consensus among the editors involved with this article is that your POV on this issue is not supported by facts, and as such I'd call for a removal of all but a brief mention of Lockheed's purchase of data from Yakovlev (I've never tried to remove ALL reference to this fact, despite Ken's claims). Anything beyond that is nothing but guesswork and hand-waving. Thanks to all who took the time to give their input. ViperNerd (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Ken, but what you've outlined from Gunston and Gordon does not support what you've been adding to the article. The authors' credibility is not in question here. Drawing conclusions not supported in sources is called synthesis in WP terms. If the sources don't give details of the relationship between Lock and Yak, then WP cannot either. If there are no sources making an explicit connection between the Yak-43 and the X-35/F-35, and especially the F-22, then we cannot make such connections. We state what the sources actually say (in our own words, of course), and nothing else. Our opinions intepretations, and even educated reasonings cannot be included if they are not directly supported by the sources. We don't help a company or nation's credibiliyy by asserting things that cannot actually be proven. As to the X=35/F-35, the details of the Yak-141 "connection" should be covered in the X-35 article, with a brief summary here. There is no need to have duplicate info in 2 articles, especially since the X-35 article was split from this article so as to cover the development in greater detail, and thus allowing the the F-35 article to foucus of matters realted to actual production and service. - BillCJ (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

[Unindent] Per BillCJ's request, I have assembled some reference sources on the Yak influence on the X/F-35. I've inserted them on the X-35 Talk page. I've also provided a summary of what I remember from what I read or heard at the time. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

BillCJ exhibiting symptoms of article ownership.

I recently made some contributions to the ongoing discussion in this article only to have the user BillCJ delete all of my comments claiming they did not contribute. I beg to differ on that point as I can provide sources to most of this information. For example, mentioning that the Mig-31 does not fit Lockheed Martin's claim that the F-35 is faster then all 4th generation fighters in a combat configuration is a legitimate point. So is pointing out that the company funded a political party who reviewed and decided to continue the contract to purchase one of their aircraft. Furthermore, it is on record that US defence contractors routinely fail to deliver on time or within budget to Australia. Pointing this out is entirely fair and is sourceable. In fact it has been mentioned, not only in the mainstream press but by members of our parliament who've done independent research into the F-35 project.

Please discuss your reasons point by point here for your reverts!--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bill. Your comments ([37]) are general discussion about the F-35 and Australia's motivation for participating in the program (eg, "The USA is putting us between a rock and a smelly place by interfering in our democratic system to steal our tax dollars") and have nothing to do with this article. As stated in WP:TALK "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article." Nick-D (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflist) This is not the article, but it's talk page. You've made no changes or addtions to the article that then I reverted. Most of your comments were not contructive to improving the article, but mostly sarcasm with an apparant axe to grind. I'm not certain the MiG-31 counts as a 4th gen fighter, being basically an upgraded MiG-25, but fighter generations are mostly a fabrication of Lockheed anyway! They are basically meaningless, but it makes the Indians feel superior to the Pakistanis (Tejas vs. JF-17, which is 15 years newer, but an older generation!). As to your claims of political bribery, Lockheed is quite famous for having done that in the past, notably with the F-104, but there were many convictions and resignations from those cases. Has there been any actual legal proof or convictions in the AUssie case? FInally, almost all modern combat aircraft have difficulty coming in on time or on budget. This is not unique to products sold by Americans to Australians, as I am sure you no doubt know. A400M and Tejas are jsut two well-know non-American examples, and even the vaunted Typhoon was several years late. I apologize for not taking your comments more seriously, but generous amounts of sarcasm will do that. I use sarcasm myself, but not as the bulk of my comments. - BillCJ (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Nick and Bill. Senor Freebie, I recommend you read WP:SOAP. An encyclopedia is supposed to have a neutral tone; it is not an exposé of solely negative points or an advertisement of positive fluff. When someone comes along and drops a laundry list of all one or the other – and without reliable sourcing – they can usually expect it to be reverted. (BTW, Bill, fighter generations are not a creation of Lockheed's; some ascribe them to Russian writings in the 1970s-80s, and others to Western sources in the 1960s.) Askari Mark (Talk) 02:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Mark, but that was my sarcasm! LM may not have invented them, but they seem to get the most mileage out of it! And sorry for being a bit heavy on the F-104 bribery, but I'm a Grumman fan - Tomcats and Tigers forever! - BillCJ (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I edited out the one major piece of soapboxing I used in the discussion page; where I commented that the USA was putting Australia between a rock and a smelly place. This just isn't the place for that. Perhaps an article on the defence relationship between Australia and the USA would be a more appropriate location for a comment like that. However I do think that my points were all relevant and contributed to discussion. This page is not exclusively for people who edit the main article. I mostly contribute to 'discussions' because I have a good general knowledge of the information available in this field but I don't have enough time to go back through all my sources. So I instead contribute to discussions on what should be modified or fixed in the article. For example here I backed up the points made regarding the use of multiple engines for the same prototype aircraft. I mentioned that the Mig-31, being the fastest 4th generation fighter, most likely broke LM's claims for the F-35's speed. And I pointed out the political / business relationship between the current Australian government and their contractor. These are all valid contributions to the discussion here and perhaps because BillCJ was offended by one of them or because my wording was no to his liking he reverted all of them and presumed he had the right to 'edit war' to silence me.
Also, the mere fact that every one of my comments added to the discussion ... yet I didn't soap box in the article itself means I was justified in making my comments and Bill was not justified in deleting them.
And a side note; Bill, I suggest you re-research the Mig-31 after the point you made. The airframe design and engines have less in common then the F/A-18A has with the F/A-18E, which are both completely different aircraft who use the same name. Also, component wise the Mig-31 could be considered a 3.5th generation aircraft when introduced into service but a 4.5th generation aircraft after upgrades ... so my point stands. Besides, I doubt VERY much that the F-35 could outpace many other 4th generation aircraft such as the F-14, F-15, Mig-29 or Su-27, most of which redline around 1,000km/p/h quicker.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I’ve missed it, but I don’t see anywhere in this article mention of a Lockheed Martin claim that “the F-35 is faster then all 4th generation fighters in a combat configuration”. It might be true … in the case where the F-35’s combat load is entirely internal (effectively “clean”) and its competitors is (by necessity) external; stores, tanks, pods and pylons are typically draggy. In any case, to confirm or refute this, we’d have to have a reliable source that has “run the numbers”; for us to do so would be ”original research”, which is verboten on Wikipedia. Calling a MiG-31 a “Generation 3.5” aircraft design would be even more egregious original research, since there is no such term in general use.
As for Bill’s reverting you, that’s not unfair (particularly for unsourced material). The general procedure that Wikipedia prefers be followed in content disputes is Bold-Revert-Discuss (not to forget Assume Good Faith). You were bold, he reverted, and we’re here discussing. Since sarcasm tends to singe more often than it enlightens, how about both you and Bill leave off with it and let’s all just be collegial from here on. Good enough? Askari Mark (Talk) 04:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The F-35 speed remark was from a discussion of a source that was being removed because of weasel statements. The source was Lockheed Martin's site. I apologise for the sarcasm ... it was out of place ... but I was not the first offender which made me assume that Bill removed my comments (note all my comments, not just the ones with sarcasm) because he disagreed with my comments and didn't want them to be part of the discussion. I'm not really advocating original research either.--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. Let's go forward. So what exactly is it that you do want add? Askari Mark (Talk) 20:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The "Incorrect or weasel statements in a link" section above is about a performance comparison in a LM article. That was not mentioned in this wikipedia article. Time to move onto stuff that improves this article... -Fnlayson (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Conversion Error

There is a conversion error in the calculations of the Mach-Numbers the F-35 can reach. They use the speed of sound at sea level ~ 761 mph instead of the speed of sound at high altitude, which is ~ 661 mph.

To calculate the F-35's maximum speed Mach-Numbers with the first value is wrong because the F-35 will achieve this speed only a altitude and not at sea-level, otherwise she would be the fastest conventional aircraft at sea-level, even faster than a Tornado, which can reach Mach 1.3 at sea-level.-- (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea, 1200 mph is for Mach 1.6 at sea level, which is not likely. Blame it on the sources. See F-35A specs. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Up to 9Gs

The "up to" part of the 9Gs reference is weaselish. There will be a 9G rated F-35. This is the F-35A. The F-35B and F-35C are not so rated and I'll try to find a ref. Hcobb (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


So we know their are 2 engines being developed for the F-35, Pratt & Whitney F135, and The General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136. Why did they make 2 engines for this fighter? was it a performance/ budget issue or a variant issue? Ss9999 (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The F135 is the main engine. The F136 is being developed at a slower rate as a contingency/back-up engine and also serves as competition to keep costs down, etc. The military has tried to cut the F136 out of the budget the last couple of years but Congress has added funds for it. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I see. Has this been done with any other aircraft? Just curious. Ss9999 (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Nothing that similar that I can think of. They developed a different engine for the F-16 in the 1980s after it was in service. On the program that lead to the F-22, two engines were developed with the better one selected for production. This won't help improve this article, so I'll stop there. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Often an older engine is used on the original prototypes and production models of an aircraft while a more advanced engine goes through rigorous testing. I'm not sure if this was the case with the engine they upgraded the F-14 with in the late 80's early 90's but it is presently the case with some newer model Russian aircraft I believe (Su-34???).--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The article seems to suggest that the GE engines are ready to go as a replacements, but this link and this link both suggest that the GE engine is a only possible alternative, with partisan support from Senator Kennedy. Perhaps someone with a more in-depth knowledge might address this issue in light of a threatened Obama budget veto.Nightmote (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This article does not say ready to go. Both places where the GE/RR F136 is mentioned say under/in development. The engine has continued to receive funding from Congress over the past 3-4 years despite no DoD requests. The secondary/back up part should be clarified in the text though. There were some details of this in the F136 article a while back. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Popular Culture Addendums

Let's be consistent here please. It appears that many users, including myself, have attempted to improve this section only to have our efforts be met with claims of "cruft". Aside from the insulting arrogance conveyed by providing the aloof justification of "cruft", how does one label a thing as "popular" to "culture" (and to whose)? In this case, I had taken the time to add a blurb about the F-35's even more prior and prominent appearance in EA's Battlefield 2 title, that, contrary to the process I seek here, was deleted without consensus. Considering the fact that it is a well-known title with over 2 million copies sold [1], it seems likely to resonate with the typical Wikipedian (and if not, how could any justification be given then for an obnoxious flop of a movie?). I motion either all credible and well-written sources of popular culture be included, or none at all. As it stands now, subjective appraisals of "popularity" by a user toting justifications such as "cruft" is not very encyclopedic. (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Before I answer your specifics, it would help to know when you added this info, and when it was removed, as I can find no edits by your IP for the past 3 weeks at least. IP addresses can change, so if you made these edits under another IP, it would be helpful to know that up front, without having to guess. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's the revision: (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The entry there is uncited. The link in your reference listed above is not working for me now. However this article has the same title, but does not mention game sales. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Please note this is an article about a real aircraft not computer games, the entry would be removed as not notable to the aircraft. The fact that it is a high selling game has nothing to do with the aircraft. It is not subjective - popular Culture items of notable appearances in media of real aircraft would be judged on their merits. Anything else related to simulations, artifacts, games, fantasy etc are not notable to the real aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Also note the current entry on Live Free or Die Hard doesnt meet this criteria either! MilborneOne (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I am in full agreement, the policy should apply equally. In favor for removing or adding all non-military or non-aviation related information. (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The WP:Aircraft project's policy currently does not mention real or non-real aircraft, except for speculation about look-a-likes to prevent original research. WP:MILHIST's policy on pop culture is similar but more general. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
In light of the above, the section has been removed (commented out) -Original Poster of Topic (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
You need to get a consensus to remove it. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought that's what this was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
my suggestion was implicit (read above): either keep all popular culture references or remove them all. The article you linked states that consensuses change, so referring to an old consensus is not progressing this one. -Original Poster of Topic (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I generally stay away from dealing with trivia sections, but since a revised consensus is being sought, I might as well add my 2 cents’ worth to make a quorum. I’m not familiar with BF2, but I notice that the WP article has almost nothing to say about the role of airpower in the game and nothing about the F-35 – which would not indicate a particularly “notable role” in the game (although its absence doesn’t prove that). I think the best capture of Wikiproject Aircraft consensus on adding “pop culture” material is expressed in Template:NoMoreCruft:
“Please do not add the many minor appearances of the aircraft. This section is only for major cultural appearances where the aircraft plays a MAJOR part in the story line, or has an "especially notable" role in what is listed. A verifiable source proving the appearance's notability may be required. Random cruft, including ALL Ace Combat, Battlefield, and Metal Gear Solid appearances, and ALL anime/fiction lookalike speculation, WILL BE removed.”
Since BF2 doesn’t seem to give any significant play to airpower in general or the F-35 in particular, I can’t see any special reason to include it. As for the “Live Free or Die Hard” film, it did make a special CGI effort to represent the F-35 and was a significant feature of that film, so I see no reason to remove it. (Personally, though, I would not shed a tear if the trivia sections were removed altogether, but there are a number of people who hold them dear.) Askari Mark (Talk) 03:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Coming from a background of working on BF-2 mods and in fact working on the mod that inspired the inclusion of a number of the vehicles in BF-2, including the F-35 I would like to point out that your observations are entirely incorrect. One of the most popular aspects of the game is the air combat. The whole concept of the game is based around all contemporary military hardware existing on the same battlefield. Of course, this is limited to 1 or 2 pieces of equipment in each class. The F-35 & F/A-18 being the choices of the developers for the USMC, for obvious reasons. The F-35, ingame is a sought after, intergral part of the game which MILLIONS of people worldwide have flown, knowing full well, its name, what it looks like and what weaponry it fires BECAUSE of the game. Additionally, despite only perhaps 8 out of 64 players in a server flying at a time, there are often queues on airfields and carriers, of players waiting for the mere chance at flying the aircraft ingame. In fact, since the original title, the aircraft have been so popular that one of the first questions asked by fans when a new title is announced is "What aircraft will you be including?"--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow: a 5-minute poorly modeled CGI sequence lacking proper physics in a campy movie is deemed more notable than an integral element in game-play to a largely-grossing game which featured the F-35B, *by name*, modeled to visual specification and even an attempt at physical simulation (not to mention all the while being user-controlled)? Again, I agree, any measure of "popularity" is subjective at best and some of the references I've seen making it into articles these days are appallingly irrelevant. -OP

(Unindent) OP, you seem to be hung up on the "popular" in "Popular Culture". The section is not a list of the most popular references to an aircraft, but rather a cited record of appearances that are notable TO the aircraft. The rest has been fully explained over and over, so I won't waste my time repeating stuff you're not getting anyway. Like Mark, I'd be very happy to do away with the sections altogether, but again, the consensus, both general and specific, has been to keep such items, and the LFDH item in particular. Trust me, I get very tired trying to explaine to gamers over and over why their favorite game is not listed, but some dumb movie is, which is why I've allowed others to speak up to this point. Finally, all such references must be cited from reliable sources, which you haven't even attempted to do. If you had a reliable source which made some concrete connection between the aircraft and the game, then perhaps that could be included. - BillCJ (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to even review my so-called "attempt" before slandering it? Explain how a reference to the movie is notable to the aircraft any more so than a game introducing it (before-the-fact) to millions of users world-wide. Otherwise it's simply bias towards a particular form of media. -OP
Uh, yes, and I didn't see any reliable sources cited in it. Again, the mention of the movie is notable becuase it has a sources that proves it's notability. That's the key point you keep missing/ignoring. We're not making this stuff up just to confuse you, it's allbased on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, the key one of which is WP:Reliable sources. And, no, a wikilink to the game's article on WP doesn't count. - BillCJ (talk) 04:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The cited article mentioned the F-35 exactly once and in passing, these types of sources are easy to come by, I figured the WP cite to be more apt; however if that's what's required, then: "But of course the most noteworthy vehicular offerings are the jet fighters and choppers available on almost all of the maps. Blackhawks, Cobras, Hinds, Migs, F-35s, and more all make an appearance in the game as flyable aircraft..."[2] "For example, F-35 pilots can actually switch their aircraft to VTOL mode just by setting the throttle all the way down, allowing for some really nice precision landings and takeoffs"[3] "* F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) - Single seat fighter bomber"[4] - corroborate the F-35's noteworthy appearance in the game. -OP (talk) 08:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the references for the “Die Hard” film because OP is right in that both fails to support any kind of notability for the F-35. The source basically just says that a CGI version was in it. The American Cinematographer doesn’t even mention the F-35 (or show a pic), but simply refers to a “jet fighter” a couple of times. I’m surprised that it gained consensus on such slim reeds. Respecting that consensus, though, I haven’t removed the paragraph, but have tagged it for needing reliable sources. There actually should be some useful refs “out there” since I can recall lots of news stories and commentary on the film’s CGI F-35. If no one can find any, then we should delete it (and the section with it, if still empty).
That said, OP, I think you still don’t quite understand how notability applies in this particular thread. Another way to look at it might be that if the film, game or whatnot adds to the notability of the F-35 with the general public, then it’s suitable for inclusion in this article which is about the aircraft; if not, then it belongs in the article on the film, game or whatnot. As for BF2, I’ve seen no indication that the F-35 is anything more than just another one of the “airborne toys” in the game. Anybody choosing to play the game probably already knows what the F-35 is and doesn’t learn more about it. At best, the F-35 adds some cachet (actually all but none) to the game, but the game conveys nothing to the F-35. Does that make it more clear? Askari Mark (Talk) 02:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure this is evident already, but I draw attention to the fact that this "consensus" was reached around the same time the movie released, obviously tainting relevancy. That being said, contrary to your assumptions, I can recall BF2 being one of the first major mediums to portray the JSF (which at the time was barely out of its X-35 infancy), thus most playing or viewing the game at that time would not have been likely to know of it. Also your very same claim could be leveled at the movie, since it debuted much later than the game (giving more chance for familiarity) and presented even less of it to be learned or even seen. Anecdotally, I was one of the many unacquainted and spent considerable many hours here on wikipedia researching this new aircraft. Considering the figure cited for sales and its proximity of release to the JSF program, arguably BF2 was one of the largest hands-on introductions the fighter probably ever had and is certainly noteworthy of mention. -OP (talk) 05:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

[Outdent] I’m not sure why Fnlayson restored the citation that doesn’t even mention the F-35 – and thereby doesn’t even confirm the F-35’s presence in the movie. Care to share your rationale, Jeff? What is need, IMHO, are sources that reflect the impact the film had on the expanding the notability of the F-35 with the general public, not simply one that confirms its usage in a film or discusses how it was created using CGI technology (which would be better placed in articles under those genres).

OP, Wikipedia’s sense of “notability” is not always the same as the “real-world” sense of it; in fact, one of the areas in which the verisimilitude breaks down most often is in “Pop Culture” entries, which is why so many editors don’t like them. As for the film, after examining the sources cited for its relevancy here and finding them lacking, I’m currently encouraging their replacement by more appropriate ones or else removing the entry. The fact that consensus was formed when the movie debuted or the fact that it’s campy have no impact on its notability – and, indeed, based on your arguments here, the consensus is being revisited. I’m not yet arguing its removal because I can personally recall (although I didn’t watch the movie) a lot of media discussion about the F-35, what it was, and how it was produced using CGI. Because of that, I feel sure there are appropriate reliable sources “out there.” If no one can be bothered to find them in a reasonable amount of time, then we can remove it pending some editor who wants to taking the time to do so.

This brings to the game reference you want to add in. As per the “No More Cruft” template I quoted from above, what doesn’t go into “Pop Culture” sections includes mentions of games, films or books in which the F-35 makes no non-notable appearance – i.e., is just one of many “items” or “plot devices” as far as the broader “pop” culture is concerned. This is true even if the venue is itself significant and notable; contrariwise, an otherwise minor role makes a significant contribution to the notability of the F-35 among the general public is a relevant reason for it to appear here.

The proof that it is relevant lies with the editor wanting to add it. This requires a reliable, neutral source that verifies its relevancy. So far, I’ve seen no evidence that the F-35 was especially notable even within the game (other than for provoking your own interest in it). While the gaming community is only a small subset of the general population, you could justify an entry for a game based on its being the most successful game (in terms of popularity, sales and critical acclaim) that featured – in the sense of “particularly highlighted” the F-35 and that its success was based on this. This is the approach we use for flight simulator games – the simple fact that such a game explicitly features the aircraft, even as the only one included, is not sufficient justification to include it. So, the next step is up to you. Start finding some reliable sources that substantiate this. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Was my edit summary not sufficient? I keep your tag and added a VS tag for the notability aspect. The reference I left seemed fair to support content in place, but not neccesarily the notability part. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, not originally, but now I see where you're coming from. My point though is that the source doesn't even mention the F-35, just a "jet fighter". So all it does it confirm that the film used a CGI model based upon a full-scale model of an unspecified "jet fighter". It could have been a Harrier or an A-10 (which would have been more appropriate and spectacular, IMHO). Askari Mark (Talk) 23:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
and the sources I cited above? One explicitly referring to the F-35 as "noteworthy" in the game. In terms of notability, I have seen the movie, and neither remarked the quality of the CGI nor the reaction to it as particularly noteworthy by those standards. On all accounts, the game would seem to better portray the F-35 as notable in terms of time of debut, average duration of exposure, number of viewers reached, and accuracy/depth of the portrayal. -OP (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The game certainly does feature the game prominently and in fact its inclusion was, as I recall, being part of the Battlefield community, was of major interest to the public at the time the games release. Also, the reference to "The most popular game" and then stating that this is based of the experience with flight simulators demonstrates your lack of understanding of the title in question. When Battlefield 2 was released, it spent a large amount of time as number 2 in terms of total players online for its genre. It is part of an immensely popular franchise which makes the traditional flight simulator look like a mere blip on the radar. In fact, the mod for their previous title, point of existence, which included the F-35 and inspired its inclusion in BF-2 was probably more successful then any traditional flight simulator up until that point. In my humble opinion the millions of hours that millions of people have 'logged' flying F-35's in the Battlefield series deserve a mention more then the few seconds of CGI in Die Hard.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
It's been some time now and no suitable references have cropped up, in conjunction with the above, a removal is due time. -OP (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

OP, the sources you gave above all simply confirmed that the F-35 was a game element; none of them confirms the F-35 as being notable. Indeed, the first two come from the same game review whose article, after describing the F-35's capabilities in the game, immediately goes on to say, "Probably the best aircraft experience however is hopping into an AH-1 Cobra with a co-pilot manning the forward chain gun and launching TV-guided missiles…." The third source is just a flat list of vehicles in the game.

Senor Freebie, there is no doubt that the game has been very popular. While I respect your opinion, based on your experience, WP doesn't accept informed opinions as encyclopedic sources. If the F-35's inclusion was what "made the game", then this should be easily documentable; however, the F-35 isn’t even cited as being a notable element in WP’s article on Battlefield 2. As I noted above per Template:NoMoreCruft, PopCult sections in aircraft articles are reserved "only for major cultural appearances where the aircraft plays a MAJOR part in the story line, or has an "especially notable" role in what is listed. A verifiable source proving the appearance's notability may be required. Random cruft, including ALL Ace Combat, Battlefield, and Metal Gear Solid appearances, and ALL anime/fiction lookalike speculation, WILL BE removed." (emphasis added). So far, I’ve yet to see any cite-worthy evidence that the F-35 plays a "MAJOR part in the story line" or "an 'especially notable' role in what is listed" in BF2. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Refer to my prior comments for a referenced quote explicitly stating the F35's appearance in the game as "noteworthy". The references may indeed be weak, but deliberately so, as they are only as weak as the ones that were previously provided for that section. Regardless, this is all old-hat and I digress; suffice to say that the article is now rid of campy "pop" references all together, rather than having some subjectively listed whereas others not. - OP ( (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)).

PBS Nova documentary

Nova had a great documentary a few years ago on the competition in the plane's development in the episode "Battle of the X-Planes" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Already linked in at [[38]] Hcobb (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


Anybody want to start the Multifunction Advanced Data Link page and link in the F-35, F-22, B-2, etc? Hcobb (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Not my area. I think Link 16 and Link 22 should be similar and provide a go by. There are others at Category:Military radio systems. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Differences between X-35 and F-35??

anybody know what changes were made between the x-35 and f-35? any links? -Soapy5 (talk)

I, think this would help [39] --HDP (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
^ Thanks. The article has images and text showing changes to features. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks. anybody think this would be good to put on the article? - (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Basically, the X-35 was built to compete in the JSF Competition, while the F-35 was brought foward from that, currently having a CTOL variant (F-35A), a STOVL Variant (F-35B, as seen in Live Free or Die Hard), a Sea-based CTOL variant (F-35C), which has not yet been flown but is planned to, and several additional planned variants, including a training variant. Blueteamguy —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC).

A-10 replacement or lack their of

I think maybe a bit more could be added about the Air Forces decision to expand the A-10 instead of replacing it with F-16 variants or F-35 besides just say that the F-35 is planned to replace it in 2028, since it was supposed to be replaced much earlier.

Be Bold In Edits (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Argument: The reason the A-10 isn't being replaced for a little longer is for two reasons: 1: It is such a good and versatile aircraft. 2: Lack of a replacement that is actually BETTER than it, specifically in Air-to-Ground Blueteamguy —Preceding undated comment added 15:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC).

Carrier operations of F-35B

The Navy intends to keep using Marine fighters on their carriers. The Marines intend to buy only F-35Bs. The F-35Bs have less range and carry smaller bombs than the F-35Cs. All of these are facts. The only POV is by the GAO that is asking if the services have fully considered these facts. Please stop deleting my well documented edits. Hcobb (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This argument between the USN and USMC has been developing for a long time, and the GAO is not the deciding body on the issue. There are advantages that the F-35Bs will possess that may outweigh or balance out the disadvantages, such as the Bs not needing to use the catapults or arresting gear, meaning that they can take off and land at a higher rate, and save were/tear on cats and trap gear, among others. Were these mentioned in the GAO report? Remember that the GAO report is made by beancounters; they just make the reports and recommendations, but they don't decide policy - Congress and the Adiminstration will do that. We don't need to repory every first-hand goverment doc released, and especially only report one single point of a very long doc! When a final decision is made, then we can report that. Until then, this is really not notable. - BilCat (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Well said, BilCat. Also worth mentioning that "well documented" is not the sole criteria for adding material to a Wikipedia article. As pointed out, NOTABILITY is needed first and foremost. ViperNerd (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Section Concerns over Performance

The claim that RAND did a study, with a simulation, involving the F-35 is completely untrue.

Heres the source

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The issues has already been discussed at length before. That's at /Archive 4 now. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)