Talk:Joint Strike Fighter program

Fair use rationale for Image:F35LightIIlogo.jpg
Image:F35LightIIlogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yak-201 heh
http://vtol.boom.ru/rus/Jak-201/index.html Gnomsovet (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Program value
The value of the program is rumoured to be around $2-300 billion - this should be included in the article. Any luck finding a verifiable estimate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TGCP (talk • contribs) 00:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerns over Performance Additions
Opinion article written by Pierre M Sprey and Winslow T Wheeler in 2009 Jane's Defense Weekly. Pierre M Sprey was heavily involved in the design of the F16/F18 and A10 and his critical views offer a vast amount of experience on the subject area discussed in this section.

http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/WheelerSpreyF35Janes09.pdf

Similar interview by Winslow T Wheeler to the HuffingtonPost in May of 2010.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/winslow-t-wheeler/primer-on-f-35-performanc_b_562621.html

The summary of these two articles reveals areas that should be added to the concerns section including potential massive limitations of the airframe. Its 'multi-role' function was supposed to be a cost saving measure such that all three military branches could save costs by using a single airframe. However, at present only 30% of the parts for any of the three variants are used among the three. In addition, in trying to make a single airframe to accommodate multi-function roles, the apparent result is to create a super hi-tech yet surprisingly mediocre airframe, incapable of even matching performance levels of our current, 'tried and true' airframes developed 40 years ago. In trying to grasp the coveted 'multi-role' status, the F35 has become potentially incapable of out preforming any of the 3 airframes (on paper, because adequate airframe to airframe testing has not been conducted, despite pledges already made to by numbers of the new and yet untested aircraft) that were specifically designed with their mission roles in mind. As a close support air-to-ground airframe, it is not fuel efficient enough to loiter in an area for lengthy periods, it is not well-armored enough to stand up to ground fire, it flys too fast to mark ground targets accurately enough to ensure precession runs, and its armament is significantly reduced due to its being overweight and underpowered. As a air-to-air fighter, its relatively small wings for its weight will most likely result in a lack of maneuverability and thus survivability in air combat, in addition to the limitations on its armament, which must be kept in internal bays.

All these disadvantages for the gain of 'stealth' capabilities not on par with the F22s. And as Wheeler points out, stealthy does not equal 'missile proof', exemplified by our two 'stealthy' F-117s being shot out of the air by the Serbs in 1999 Kosovo. In addition, the future air wars will not always be 'stealth planes' versus non-stealth planes. Russia/India and now China all have their own stealth fighters. If stealth actually does increase air-to-air survivability, as the F35 designers are apparently banking on, then in a stealth plane vs. stealth plane fight, it basically comes down to 4 things, the same 4 things that have always determined the winners and losers in air warfare: speed, maneuverability, fuel consumption, and armament capabilities. When you negate all the putative advantages that stealth brings to the table, as the entrance to the stage of other stealth planes does, it is arguable that things don't look so great for a thin-skinned, fuel guzzling, sluggish, and under-munitioned airframe.

Apologies if I have not adhered to posting rules as this is my first time commenting on article content editing. Any advice / discussion on the topic or on the comments posted would be greatly appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter2001 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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


 * http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/f35-joint-strike-fighter/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

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

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 21:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

'Project formation' - my recent edit
read my summ. also, not sure if the average casual reader is going to pick up on the implicit idea that F22 raptor has no lift system. I had to read WAY between the lines to pick that up myself. so, I italicized for emphasis. hope that doesn't muck it up too bad. thanks. T-303 (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed changes to F-35 article would bring more material here, better chronology needed
I have proposed some changes to the Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II article that would change this article as well, primarily by bringing the information on cost overruns here. I think it would improve both articles, but especially the F-35 article because it is currently being criticized as too weighty (too long?).

My comments are here: Talk:Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

I also think a better history/chronology is needed, as even reading both articles it is hard to tell when & why the JSF Program began. It should go here. In particular, I think the main body of this article should start like this:
 * Around X date, the {military branch} was looking for an aircraft to replace {current aircraft(s) being used} because {reason}. {Branch 2} also needed to replace its aging fleet of {current aircraft(s) being used}. These two decided to combine requirements into one aircraft because {reason}, thus CALF. Navy was trying to develop JAST because {reason}. DoD recommendation in 1992/93 led to merger, eventually JSF - the What/Subject of that article. Then UK. Then Canada.

Of course it doesn't need to follow this exact strutcture, but something like it, giving a cohesive story to the Why, When & What of the JSF Program. Then the stuff about cost overruns and the Lockheed-Boeing issue put somewhere after this. Thoughts? Ileanadu (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. The mangled history is even worse in Rolls-Royce LiftSystem. Some history, although still deficient, can be found in Paul Bevilaqua and here. TGCP (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Joint Strike Fighter program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.govexec.com/defense/defense-beat/2002/01/the-engine-that-could/10890/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110211114358/http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?m=%2Findex&nid=548059 to http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?m=%2Findex&nid=548059
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101008022450/http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0715_airforce_shachtman.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0715_airforce_shachtman.aspx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joint Strike Fighter program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101230143911/http://www.martin-baker.co.uk/getdoc/d25952ab-5881-4999-8593-6f7f196c8770/a_history_of_the_joint_strike_fighter_programme.aspx to http://www.martin-baker.co.uk/getdoc/d25952ab-5881-4999-8593-6f7f196c8770/a_history_of_the_joint_strike_fighter_programme.aspx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)