Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II/Archive 7

Maintenance
Does anyone have any idea how much maintenance the F-35 Lightning II will need and how much it will costs once operational? The F-22 needs 30 hours of maintenance for ever 1 hour of flying costing nearly $50000 per flying hour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That won't be known with any degree of certainty until the aircraft is operationally employed for a few years and the operating air forces can tabulate some data. In the meantime vague assurances from the manufacturer about maint requirements should really be treated as marketing. - Ahunt (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Robert Gates 2011 comments
The comments made by Robert Gates in January 2011 do not reflect a "probation" delay appling to only the type B model, but rather a skyroicketing development cost that has become endemic to the whole F-35 program. As such, it is not specifically related to the B model, since the concerns cross over to the A and C models as well. It should be quoted intact, and kept in the third paragraph, or it represents a misquote. Ken keisel (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The quote involves the B-model and is already in the F-35B section. So no reason to repeat it in the Lead (see WP:LEAD & WP:UNDUE).  Most aviation articles state the F-35B production is simply being delayed so it can be fixed, not about reducing program costs. -fnlayson (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to add another portion of the quote so that it's relevent to the whole program. This paragraph has been following the controversy over development cost, but hasn't had any statements for 2011. Gate's statements of January, 2011 brings it up to date. The aviation articles are not up-to-date with 2011 developments. Production of the F-35B will proceed once development is complete, but unless the plane turns out to be a complete success the total number purchased will be substantually reduced. Gates' comments focus on problems with the "B" model, but he is making an example of it. His other comments in January display the defense department's dissatisfaction with the cost of the whole program. Ken keisel (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The cost per unit is the cheapest for any fourth- or fifth-generation aircraft
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/multibillion-dollar-fighter-jet-buy-best-value-for-canada-general/article1879548/

That goes in the lead, no? Hcobb (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well considering this is political-interference-running by a general on behalf of the governing political party against opposition attempts to make the F-35 purchase an upcoming election issue and given that the general didn't cite any figures to back up his claim, I would think this would go into the Canada section in Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement. - Ahunt (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would love to see them coming in cheaper than the Super Hornet or Saab JAS 39 Gripen. The last figures seemed to suggest that you could get three Gripens or two Super Hornets for one F-35. If LM had made savings of this magnitude I think we would have heard about it.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have added the quotes and ref to Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement. If you want to know specifically what prompted the government to ask the general to go and visit the Globe and Mail's offices then have a look at this ad released earlier in the week. I wouldn't give much weight to the quotes given, seeing the political nature of the whole situation and the broad statements made without any backing dollar figures. - Ahunt (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Triple Target Terminator

 * http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/t3/index.html
 * http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/26/meet-darpas-triple-target-terminator/
 * http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2010/DARPA/0603286E.pdf

The Baby Seal is getting lots of flak for scenarios in which it goes up against as yet unbuilt fifth generation fighters while somehow only armed with fourth generation missiles. I'll make the T3 page in a few days unless somebody else beats me to it. Hcobb (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Software
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/stealth-fighter-to-get-more-software-development-flight-test-time-official-115602379.html Industry observers say that's an optimistic assessment given that engineers will have to write up to 4 million additional lines of code to complete the 8 million lines that go into a fully functional F-35.


 * Huh? We just got a ref that the software is 85% complete, not just 50% complete?  How to weave this in? Hcobb (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * AvLeak has the source, so going with it. Hcobb (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps writing code isnt the only thing that goes into software development, or the earlier portions of writing code are more complex and difficult than later portions. Its up to you but I think it might be a waste of energy to nitpick. -Nem1yan (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Writing the code is only the first half of the work, then comes, testing, de-bugging, etc. If you have half the lines of code written you are probably 25% done. - Ahunt (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Photonics
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2011/March/Pages/ChangesPossibleforF35sCommunicationNetwork.aspx Apic at the end of the year will provide analog versions of the chips for system testing. If the technologies prove their muster, JSF program managers could elect to incorporate them into block-four upgrades, which may kick off as soon as 2013, said Jeffreys. Or engineers could include them in offerings for international customers who may want to integrate specific hardware onto the aircraft.


 * I.e. "Israel". I think it'd be a bit of a stretch to include this at this time though. Hcobb (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Common name rule
Is "Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II" really the common name for this aircraft? It seems a bit wordy. I would guess that "F-35", "F-35 Lightning II", or "Joint Strike Fighter" is more common. Remember, the common name rule applies to article titles. The common name rule states, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." The common name rule is a Wikipedia policy, not a guideline.

If the common name is "F-35 Lightning II", rather than "Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II", then the article should be renamed to comply with Wikipedia article naming policy. --JHP (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * By consensus the article name reflects the aircraft project naming convention, suggest rather than making the same suggestion on a number of articles you raise it at the project WP:AIRCRAFT for discussion, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Status Update
With the flight of the first production plane, should we either change the station to "in production", or add it to "undergoing flight testing"? user:mnw2000 17:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That makes sense, but since it is a very limited, slow production I have qualified the info box status as "limited production". - Ahunt (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but production is in low rate initial production phase. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If so then the start of production must be 2010 and no sooner. Hcobb (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That makes sense, but I haven't been able to find when the first "production" aircraft rolled out, as opposed to "prototypes" which are usually more hand-built. - Ahunt (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Who is Randy Howard?
Dont know?? Well apparently he works for Lockheed Martin and has stated that “The average recurring flyaway cost of an F-35A, in 2010 economics, is approximately $65 million,” here. This of course is significantly less than some other estimates. -Nem1yan (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Company inspired daydeams? It might be worth reporting as "company spokesman claim..." just to show the disconnect. - Ahunt (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Though I personally dont believe the jet is priced that low, it is worth noting that the price of the aircraft has dropped substantially in the past year when earlier estimates had the fighter costing around $190 million. -Nem1yan (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Schwartz: Software may slow F-35 development
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/03/air-force-norman-schwartz-says-software-may-slow-f-35-development-030611w/

Trying to summarize the issues:
 * Software falling into The Mythical Man-Month trap as expected.
 * a few aerodynamic “hot spots.”
 * Ability to actually build the aircraft in numbers at the factory in question.
 * But fortunately Congress isn't providing enough money to build enough to matter.
 * Legacy fighters are falling apart while waiting for the Baby Seal.
 * And the Helmet Mounted Display sucks so bad.

Anything else? Hcobb (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * *Sigh* Hcobb you have something serious against the F-35... were you fired from Lockheed Martin or something? - Heaney555z (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Practically everyone reading this talks page is fully aware of the problems facing the F-35, you dont have to list them. And regardless of Hcobb's opinion or stance the fact is that he provides a substantial amount of information so lets lay off the rude remarks everyone. -Nem1yan (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually the entire list was just from Schwartz's comments in this one article. Is the Air Force's Schwartz not notable about their aircraft for some reason? Hcobb (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Schwartz's comments are well worth adding to the article - when the Chief of Staff has serious concerns quoted in the Air Force Times, that is as reliable and notable as it gets. Note for User:Heaney555z, welcome to Wikipedia, please read WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * While I agree that this information is noteworthy I dont really see the point in having it from so many different perspectives. I say add Schwartz and remove some of the no-name private analysts from "Ishkabibbleland" along with statements that come from competing companies who would clearly profit should Lockheed stumble. -Nem1yan (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

First on my delete list is Goon. Do I have a second? Hcobb (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Second seems to be LockMart MP Laurie Hawn

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Critic+fighter+comes+under+fire/4393125/story.html also attacks a retired Australian air force officer who has raised questions about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and an Australian aviation analyst who has done the same.


 * So make a Goon-free zone? Hcobb (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia? I've been using it for over 5 years. The reason I'm not assuming good faith is that I've seen Hcobb on other articles saying some seriously ridiculously biased things, and I don't want this creeping into an ENCYCLOPAEDIA!

Also- they said these types of things about the F-16, and all aircraft. There's no reason to add critics opinions in the OPENING paragraph of the article like they do here.

It seems to be popular these days to criticize absolutely everything with no basis, and I really DO see Lockheed Martin competition creeping in here- the capitalists have no end to their shame...

The F-35 is most likely going to be a huge success- based on a book I bought about the aircraft and flight testing and all the things I've read. Maybe that's not relevant to the article, but I'm just saying. - Heaney555z (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If you feel that a user has made an inappropriate addition then you should discuss it on the talks page. Regardless of who is right or wrong, or how biased something may be insulting other editors, or being rude in general, isnt going to help anything and you will probably get a little message on your talks page.  As for now, I saw purge anything from AusAir from this article.  There is enough information out there so we can be a bit more selective of where we get it from. -Nem1yan (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

When will it be actuallly produced?
The UK has claimed that it's future Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers will be launched without the F-35. So when will the plan actually be produced for foreign partners?Wikipeida is generally not reliable (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for the Queen Elizabeth Class launch date? Current estimates put it in line with F-35C production. -Nem1yan (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

F-35B Variant
I'm just a general reader, ie no expert, but I'm slightly confused about the capability of this variant. It is described as "STOVL" which I take to mean that it requires a short runway or some external aid, eg catapult or ramp, to get into the air, but can land vertically. But in the body of the paragraph, it says "The F-35B sends jet thrust directly downwards during vertical takeoffs and landing..." So that would seem to mean it can take-off vertically if necessary, not just having the jet thrust assisting take-off during a short run. If so, I'd have thought it would be described as a "VTOL". Profuse apologies if it is a stupid question and/or in the wrong place. Dawright12 (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It can take off vertically (VTOL) and with a short takeoff roll (STOVL). The short takeoff allows a heavier takeoff weight, i.e. more payload (fuel + weapons), since the wings can provide some lift.  Short takeoffs will probably be done much of the time in operational use. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The concept is that the aircraft will have used some amount of fuel during the mission and so its weight on returning would be reduced sufficiently to operate vertically instead of requiring some wing lift from slow speed travel. The brits were not convinced about this capability so insisted that the F-35B be tested for slow speed landings in addition to vertical landings, before ditching the F-35B for the F-35C.  The USMC are very unlikely to adopt SRVL (and ski jumps) on "their" LHAs. Hcobb (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Add fleetwide grounding to lead?
Whoever added the bit about all F-35s being currently grounded sure covered his tracks with a followup edit about USMC F-35Cs, so is it worth adding the current status (all aircraft grounded) to the article lead? Hcobb (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It is just a temporary situation and not uncommon in the development phase of a new design. I think it bears mentioning in the development section, but not in the lead. - Ahunt (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It also happens sometimes for even long-serving aircraft when serious faults are discovered. Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Top 10 list of F-35B flaws and fixes
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/03/top-10-list-of-f-35b-flaws-and.html


 * I don't think we've hammered quite hard enough on all these flaws. Hcobb (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Who exactly wrote that article? There are several grammar issues. Also problems are rather common in developing aircraft, unless something is exceptionally crippling or remarkable there isnt really a need to list it. -Nem1yan (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Having gone over the list in the article in detail I have to agree, these are just normal developmental teething problems and will probably be solved, all except number 10, the cost factor. - Ahunt (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Joint Strike Fighter Death Spiral
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2011/03/chart-of-the-day-joint-strike-fighter-death-spiral.html


 * Nice little chart to add to the article? Hcobb (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sensor fusion article
http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=16861

I'll look this over a bit then work it into the sensors section.

Best bit that says more than intended...

"The JSF mission fusion software has wide-ranging algorithms and the ability to task the various sensors to create and maintain target tracks and IDs."

That sounds really really complex to me... Hcobb (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Next Generation Jammer
I thought the Air Force decided on buddying with the Navy on the Boeing EA-18G Growler so why the F-35?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The NG Jammer is a podded system that is to replace the AN/ALQ-99 jammer. Since these are pods, they can be mounted on both aircraft types and others. The aircraft have to have systems to interface with the pods. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

F-35B/C for USMC wrong info?
I think someone wrote the wrong info for the sections of the F35B and F35C. The USMC will only purchase 80Bs not 80Cs. And those Bs will go on the USMC assault ships. They will buy more Bs for CVN squadrons.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We write what our sources say. What's your source? Hcobb (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, the revised plan has the USMC buying 80 C-models to go with 340 B-models. The Cs will help with training and prep for the Bs.  See the sources:, & for more details. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Reverse copy edit violation
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20110328/fact-check-stealth-fighters-110329/20110329?s_name=election2011 The Canadian CF-35 will differ from the American F-35A through the addition of a drag chute and a special type of refueling probe.


 * Now that they've copy and pasted what I wrote, do I need to rewrite? Hcobb (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That actually happens quite often and because Wikipedia is freely licenced under a CC licence they can use the text, but they have to credit Wikipedia. Of course on the other hand it could be a wild coincidence! - Ahunt (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There's not too many ways to concisely state that. Some words could be changed and the order of the items switched.  So coincidence is a possibility.  Someone could do that to the Wiki text, but I say leave it alone. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

National Origins and Manufacture
Hello,

I think it would be fair to note F-35 as having a multinational origin. The F-35 project was not funded and manufactured solely by the United States. I would also suggest that BAE systems be added as a manufacturer to accredit their input and involvement in the project.

Kind regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.78.45 (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You are aware that this is a mostly software defined fighter and only one country is allowed to look at the source code for this software, yes? Hcobb (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not a multinational project like the Panavia Tornado or the Eurofighter Typhoon were. As User:Hcobb noted the US is not dealing with anyone else as an equal partner, but merely as a subcontractors to L-M. I don't think there is any evidence that this is a multinational project, it is a US project.  - Ahunt (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Additionally none of the "partner" countries are guaranteed any specific share of the work. They get whatever LockMart feels like subcontracting to them. This meant that Israel could be brought in by LockMart shuffling things around a bit and did not require any contracts to be renegotiated. If the Screeching Baby Seal project succeeds it will do so by reducing all allied fighter aircraft industries to the status of serfs. (ITAR restrictions on the Euro canards didn't quite do the trick.) Hcobb (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Global Security
The verification tag should be removed even when Wikipedia's byzantine standards for citing sources is applied. Quoted directly from Wikipedia - "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

Global Security is used by countless news organizations as a reliable source of information on military matters. Further according to Wikipedia's own entry on Global Security "Forbes.com reviewed the site as part of their "Best of the Web" directory.[1] While praising GlobalSecurity for its "depth of military information"

I would also suggest you research a bit on John Pike. You could start here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_E._Pike

If you are going to call into question Global Security's legitimacy as a source then we really need to start looking at all the citations that use either other online sources or equipment vendors websites such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon#cite_note-136. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.50.90 (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Not really a reliable source for opinions, it is a self-published website and is not neutral. Nothing wrong with using vendor websites for factual stuff or for referencing opinons of the manufacturer. So in this example which you have reverted it really needs a better reliable reference and was tagged correctly. MilborneOne (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Just noticed that there was a talk page discussion of this, after I reverted the edit. Sorry for not checking here first. I'm with Mib1 on this. Also, as Mib1 states, manufacturers websites are great sources for factual information (e.g., specs), and they are also very useful when you use them in the context of "The manufacturer states that the goal of the XYZ project is to improved fuel consumpution by AA%". It's all about how you use the source. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Pike is a subject matter expert, but he's better at spy sats than stealth fighters. At least he's not paid by companies to shill for them like the LockMart Institute. Pike is ex-FAS and fairly FASic still. So understand his leanings when using him. Hcobb (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Cost?
Not only does the current source for the cost of the aircraft include 4 different estimates for prices it seems to be referring to the F-35C as it constantly mentions the Navy's estimates.

"The most recent Selected Acquisition Report published by the U.S. Defense Department shows an average unit production cost of $91 million per aircraft." According this the price should be $91 million plain and simple. The recent edit says not to use estimated/projected cost even though the $132 million is defined in the source as a prediction. -Nem1yan (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well to be fair we have to use estimates as the actual cost won't be known until after they are all delivered and paid for. Now whose estimates do we use or do be catalog them all and indicate the time line and the disagreements? - Ahunt (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The estimates vary from $65-450 million which would seem like a joke to anyone who read it. We could just list a few sources and say it's approx $100 million.  Its wouldnt be the most accurate but it would get the point across. -Nem1yan (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The C$450M number is the Canadian life span cost per aircraft as it includes all estimated life cycle costs, so it isn't similar to the other numbers which are "purchase price only". - Ahunt (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The Acquisitions Report says between $93-112 million on page 4 http://www.acq.osd.mil/ara/2009%20DEC%20SAR.pdf Since the 132 million is one of the navy's estimates and most likely of the F-35C. That article also mentions a navy estimate of $128 million... so are we just picking prices at random? -Nem1yan (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The Item cost excludes development cost of $382billion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.119.30 (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * How do you get that? 'Excluding development costs' is not stated int he report. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference, http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2011/02/jsf-likely-far-more-expensive-than-aircraft-theyre-replacing.html states that the price is flyaway cost and development/project/lifetime costs are separate. This is the root of the cost confusion, each cost should be stated separately. If, instead, you quote the cost of the entire project so far and divide it by the number of aircraft built so far you get the actual 'current' cost of each aircraft, which is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.219.123.211 (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

F-35B only 1500 pounds short of actually landing
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aab70046b-dbd1-4757-9477-8f79f123ded5&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

If it can't operate off of USS America isn't this game over? (No need for overtime play.) Hcobb (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What does your statement mean, and where does it come from? The article you linked states that the F-35B is 19 more test points away from sea-trials with ~3000 lb of bringback. I don't understand your statement at all. -SidewinderX (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 3000 pounds of bringback minus

Total: 4370 lbs.
 * 2x AMRAAMs --- 670lbs.
 * 2x JDAM-32's-- 2000lbs.
 * Gun pod--- 1000lbs.
 * Minimum fuel reserve 700 lbs.

So that's 1370 lbs more than the aircraft has lift for. Hcobb (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Not that it makes much difference but the B cannot take 2000lb JDAM only 1000lb weapons. (in stealth mode of course) Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

2 x 1000 lbs. == 2000 lbs. as above. Hcobb (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * From other reading on the web like this AvWeek story, it seems like amatuer accounting is the issue here. The 3000 lb bring back number seems only care about disposable stores, the JDAMs and the AAMs, not the gun pod and fuel. Anyway, I think most of this discussion falls under WP:NOTAFORUM. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Fun article
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-325
 * Affordability Expectations Are Challenged as JSF Acquisition Costs Rise and Schedules Slip
 * Progress in Achieving the JSF Program’s 2010 Goals Was Mixed
 * Program Has Still Not Fully Demonstrated a Stable Design and Mature Manufacturing Processes as It Enters Its Fifth Year of Production
 * Testing Has Been Slow and Has Not Demonstrated That the Aircraft Will Work in Its Intended Environment

I'll be adding this in this weekend, assuming that the faulty shutdown prone Federal government still counts as a reliable source. Hcobb (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There looks like there is a lot to add from that ref, good find! - Ahunt (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Noisy
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/noise-triggers-legal-bid-to-down-jet-fighter/story-fn59niix-1226037459254 I removed a statement earlier that included this link noting the noise level of the aircraft. I was going to place it in the engines section but there is already a section about this in the article and it seems to contradict the source in some ways. So is the lawsuit based from old information, or is the aircraft truly louder than it was made out to be previously? If we agree that it is that latter then it should be re-added in that section. -Nem1yan (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have re-added the text as I think noise signature it is relevant for stealth, not to mention community acceptance, but I have reworded it so it should make more sense. See if that addresses your concerns. - Ahunt (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That's fine for now, but I don't believe an aircraft's noise level will affect its stealth in a combat situation. Just because a sound is twice as loud it doesn't mean it will travel twice as far (it wont). Ground crews cant coordinate attacks or defenses based on sound, and other pilots of course cant hear it.  Unless there is an instance of sonar being used to track an aircraft I don't believe it's relevant to that section. -Nem1yan (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There is already a paragraph on high noise levels in the engine section. This text should probably be combined with that text. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

How about IR then which is half-skin and half-engine? Hcobb (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

F-35 or F135?
http://www.courant.com/business/hc-jsf-engine-costs-20110414,0,2680111.story


 * This article is rather unclear if the lemon is the airframe or the engine. Hcobb (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

"Comparable" aircraft, again
Funny ... Why insist on comparing the F-35 - what fits under the category of light-class figther or maybe ground attack class - with the PAK-FA and the J-20 aircraft that are heavy-class? As a simple example, you need more or less two F-35 to carry the ordinance from one PAK-FA (assuming only internal armament), and the J-20 is even bigger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.189.118.10 (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * LBT says J-20 is smaller than F-22 and I'm starting to see his point.


 * But of course my question is comparable in what way? If the two aircraft have something in common they shall be listed on some page that covers that common feature and they shall have inline links to that page so the comparable aircraft list is worse than useless as it creates a question "Common in what way?" instead of showing the user exactly what the common feature is. Hcobb (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

How can an aircraft be described as "four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air combat, eight times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-ground combat, and three times more effective than legacy fighters in reconnaissance and suppression of air defenses". 4x more effective sounds like journalistic nonsense. Completely unscientific, as far as I can see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As footnoted, it is a quote from this ref, but there is no indication where that came from in that ref, it sounds like something from the design specifications. - Ahunt (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wiki servers too bogged down at the moment, but here is the (LockMart) source for the four times quote: http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Lockheed_Martin_F22_and_F35_5th_Gen_Revolution_In_Military_Aviation.html Hcobb (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

F-35B LiftFan and blisks
I stumbled upon this great article while researching blisks. There is some pretty good information there about the weight reductions possible using blisk technology, which I think is pretty relevant considering the weight issues the F-35B faces and the criticism the LiftFan system has come under. I would like some support before I proceed. Ng.j (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

“For the blisks, Rolls-Royce is using hollow titanium blades. The technology, derived from civil turbofans, cuts weight by around 40 per cent. Mehta said the current version of the LiftSystem is about 320kg lighter than the original demonstrator but is also stronger and more reliable.” Ng.j (talk) 09:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

$442 billion
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/04/22/355896/f-35-programme-investigates-442-billion-operations.html

Seems to be dated tomorrow, so I'll look at it then. Hcobb (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia as a media topic
This was a cat for this article, but the appropriate content was split (twice) and is now at Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement, but the subject was this article. - Ahunt (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Treat it the same as if we had renamed an article that the media had mentioned and move the tag please. Hcobb (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ahunt that the controversy was over this article not another "daughter" article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But if somebody clicks from the category page to this page they will find nothing on the topic here. Hcobb (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the solution is to have a section on that in this article, with a "Main" template pointing to the location in Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement? - Ahunt (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like Henry has taken care of doing that! - Ahunt (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I've just removed this material on the grounds that it was giving undue weight to this issue. This article is about the aircraft, and we need to cover it, and not media coverage of the the article itself. The relevant guideline (WP:SUBJECT) is very clear about this (to quote: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so its articles are about their subjects; they are not about the articles themselves (even if an article itself becomes famous, it should not report this about itself)."). The correct location for coverage of the discussion about the edits to the article would seem to be Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement. Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Invoking BRD here, the section may be overly long and may need to go into the Canadian sub-article but it did have significance and continues to be a factor in the whitewashing of the CF-35 procurement. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC).

Airshow
The F-35 isn't a dedicated airshow aircraft like the Eurofighter or F-22 so let's leave off on this until an actual event and date is mentioned by a RS please.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/04/f-35s-1st-air-show-appearance.html

Hcobb (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds right. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Going Up!
No, not the aircraft (that would depend on it actually flying), but instead...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/12/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSTRE74B2EM20110512 The cost of new weapons usually goes down as manufacturing matures, but Lockheed submitted a bid that was about $7 million higher per plane than in the last contract, sources familiar with the program told Reuters last week.

But at least the performance is going down.

http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2011/05/f-35_sar.html

Combat radius for model:
 * F-35A 584nm
 * F-35B 469nm
 * F-35C 615nm

Hcobb (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Mach Numbers and Spare Tires
The Mach number is wrong. If the F-35 has a maximum speed of 1935 kph, then, provided it flies at high altitude, the Mach number is ~1.8 cause the divisor ist not ~1200 kph, but ~1060 kph. This bad conversion can be found in all data sheets.--109.91.72.35 (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Its the max speed is Mach 1.6+. It reached Mach 1.67 in some testing a couple years ago.  The associated speeds (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) per a JSF reference appear to be be at medium altitude (approx. 16,000 ft).  The speeds may be inaccurate for the altitude used. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Mach 1.6 at 16,000 ft = (~ 4.876 m) is not a bad value, why do they critize the "low" speed of the F-35. There are only a few aircraft that are as fast as Mach 1.6 at that relatively low altitude.--109.91.72.35 (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The aircraft that reached 1.6 was not a production version. Hcobb (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And that means...? Nothing. Kind of like the "spare tire" comment and misleading edit. - BilCat (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * @Hcobb, I've had enough nonsense from you on this article page, if you don't know anything then the least you could do is ask someone here instead of making such embarrassing and/or laughable edit. IDK, maybe you need a fourth wheel for the Harrier jumpjet but this article is about the F-35! And please, stop all your misleading/nonsensical explanations in your edit summaries (this is something very visible on all the article pages you've edited on) because your behaviour is making me very close to wringing you to WP:RFC/U. Take heed. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 12:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In case anyone is wondering where that "spare tire" is located, see this photo and explanation. - BilCat (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Can he tell the difference between a jar of black eye pea from that of the mexican jumping bean? We'll see. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 21:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Per his comment below, apparently not! At this point, he seems to be trolling, his comments are best ignored, and all his recent article edits should probably be reviewed for accuracy or misleading statements. - BilCat (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The current article is incorrect. The spare tire is just as useful for takeoffs and landings on aircraft carriers. Hcobb (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The article discusses its usefulness on carriers. What exactly do you find incorrect about it? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As the F-35 or any other plane is unable to conduct a carrier catapult takeoff without the twin wheels its more than just as useful.Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)




 * Actually, that would depend on the type of aircraft, and the equipment of the carrier. All modern catapult-capable carrier aircraft (US and French, anyway) use the built-in hold-back bar system, hence the need for two wheels. Super Etendards have only a single nosewheel, but it uses the bridle system, which is also fitted to the CdG. Ditto for the A-4s and the Sao Paulo. But as there is no "spare tire", HC's comments are more trollish than helpful. - BilCat (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Soon enough, he will troll again... by nick-picking on spellings, such as: tire → tyre, et al. Which begs the question now, has his current employer been feeding him too much of 1s and 0s? So much so that he cannot fathom that on his part that competence is required on WP. Soon, we'll see him on the chopping board of WP:RFC/U, I think I speak for most everyone here when I said I've had enough of his bollocks, its time to act. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur it may be necessary, but he still has time to explain himself here without being obtuse. If he just made a mistake, he just need say so, or if it was a poor attempt at being funny (I've made plenty of those myself!), then he just needs to admit it, and move on. But if things like this continue, here and elsewhere, then yeah, and RFC/U would be useful. - BilCat (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Considering that India is still using the Sea Harrier Mk.51 (which has 5 wheels!), I don't see where this could lead to. Perhaps the Antonov An-225, eventually? IMO, I still think that RFC/U is the way to jolt his grey matter into more intelligent conversation with us. Enough is enough. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

More criticism of Lockheed and the F-35 from John McCain et al

 * Early F-35 costs increase $771M, Lockheed says
 * McCain: JSF Has Racked Up $771 Million In Overruns - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Someone ought to check McCain's off-shore accounts for deposits from Boeing. :) - BilCat (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Did you see the old goat go after the tanker deal recently? Hcobb (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well the Republicans are positioning themselves as the defenders of the public purse and the opposition to govt waste and the F-35 is a huge target, virtually the ultimate boondoggle. Should these refs be added to the text? - Ahunt (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well LockMart has replied:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/07/13/dogfighting-on-twitter-over-the-f-35/?mod=google_news_blog

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-19/lockheed-pratt-to-pay-283m-in-f-35-overruns.html

So include that also. Hcobb (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II as a replacement for the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit
Please contribute to the discourse in the talk page of the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit. This is the statement in question that was cited: "The F-35 could be thrust into the spotlight if the planners judge that the B-2 reaches a point where it is no longer able to penetrate enemy air defenses—especially in daytime. The B-2 does not carry standoff weapons, noted Alston. Threats that keep a B-2 from performing direct nuclear attacks could, in effect, hand that mission, too, to the F-35." Other sources also deal with the replacement of the B-2 as being radically different than the present aircraft. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC).


 * There may still be a B-2/B-3 gap where the F-35 steps in for some scenarios. Hcobb (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Operational test schedule
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/07/defense-air-force-to-start-opeval-test-f35-071511/
 * “The JPO is currently estimating Ops Test of Block 2B to commence in early 2015 and complete in early 2016, and the [Operational Test] for Block 3C IOC capabilities to commence in mid-2016 and to end in early 2018,” said Air Force spokesman Maj. Chad Steffey.

Too down in the weeds to add now? Hcobb (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

External fuel
Are all the external hardpoints piped for fuel? Hcobb (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Not $65 Million
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7656140&c=AME&s=BUD
 * An official at the JSF program office said Lockheed's $65 million price tag claim is "disingenuous" because it does not include the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine that powers the jet. The program office has repeatedly asked the company to stop using the $65 million figure, he said.

Add this in? Hcobb (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the ongoing cost debate is worth reporting and that this is part of that story. - Ahunt (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Supercruise gives F-22 40% boost in weapons range
This is mentioned over at the F-22 article (finally). Is it needed here? Hcobb (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's compare to the F-35. That does not seem that critical to mention here, but either way.   -Fnlayson (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The fun fact is that the F-35 can't launch missiles when supersonic. One wonders if this is what drove the external mounting of the AIM-132 ASRAAMs, or if it was more a problem with LOAL. Hcobb (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your source does not say that the F-35 can't launch missiles while supersonic. It says that the F-22s supercruise ability (the ability to fly supersonic without the need for afterburner) give its missiles expanded killzones. That the F-35 lacks supercruise is in no way new information. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

National Origin
Wouldn't the aircraft itself be multinational given that, for example, BAE among other things designed the crew life support and escape systems, electronic warfare systems, fuel system, and fcs? G.R. Allison (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Principal funding is from the US DOD, USAF is the primary contracting service, and LM is the prime contractor. If the US cancels the project, it's dead, as with the F-136 engine. - BilCat (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing with that, I'm disagreeing that the national origin is solely the United States. Even as recently as least year, it wasn't just described as solely having the US as national origin.G.R. Allison (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Described where? And by whom? - BilCat (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to say, on this page and a year back around this time. My issue is just that I don't believe it can solely be of US origin given foreign development input. G.R. Allison (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * National origin is not meant to indicate everbody who has an input to the project just the main player, which in this case is the United States. Most modern aircraft have big bits from other countries and none are 100% origin from one country. If you have a Boeing 757 with Rolls-Royce engines the British content (by cost) is quite high but we would never consider calling it a Anglo-American product or a multinational origin. The infobox is just a quick guide the article body should have the detail. MilborneOne (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing it up, I had misunderstood what 'National Origin' refers to, I thought it referred to the nations which developed the aircraft rather than the one which started the program. Sorry for the fuss I caused, happy editing! :) G.R. Allison (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

LBT says no hackers in the skies
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/this-just-in--the-next-generation-jammer-will-not-be-used-for-cyber-warfare?a=1&c=1171

Well obviously one of the competing teams paid him to write this, but is it notable anyway? Hcobb (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * WP is not here to report what every analyst says about every little incident, per WP:NOTNEWS. And cost overuns is not a new thing, it's happened with almost every US military program since the McNamara era, when he put the DOD in charge of (micro-)managing procurement, and it occurred to some degree bofore that. Neither is fixed-cost pricing and over-runs, as that's what curtailed the F-14's procurement (IIRC), among others. The only thing that changes is the amount of zeros involved, and perhaps the number of talking heads who squawk squawking heads now available on the internet, and their parrots on WP. - BilCat (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should consider writing your own blog on the F-35. You could call it "Clubbing baby seals" or something. But no, we couldn't cite it on WP. - BilCat (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't I have to include articles like: http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2011/10/is-the-air-force-rushing-the-jsf-into-a-serious-mishap.html If I did? Hcobb (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't know. Don't care. Don't use this page for discussing your fantasy blog. This page is for discussing changes to the article, as you well know, Hcobb. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * POGO? No, that's even less reliable than a user's blog! - BilCat (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * An aircraft lacking a feature that it was never designed to have in the first place is not notable. It'd be like commenting on how the eurodeltas dont have internal weapons bays (and the lack of proposed upgrades). -Nem1yan (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

2014
The USMC keeps saying 2014. Yes, they're insane, but they only want to have an initial capability better than the Harrier, and that's not asking for much. So shall we slip that introduction year back to 2014?

See: http://www.ainonline.com/?q=aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2011-11-04/f-35-delay-forces-3-billion-upgrade-request-us-air-force-f-16s

Hcobb (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Will you approach the discussion with maturity not found in your accusations of insanity? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As it states late 2014 or 2015, its better to wait for a clearer IOC date. Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Two seater?
The article makes no reference to a two-seat training version of the F-35, nor have I seen any mention in any of the referenced articles I have read. Is there going to be a trainer version or is all training going to be simulator-based? The article should mention this, if refs can be found. - Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Dibs. Hcobb (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I see you put it in and it was removed. I read the source and it is well supported so I have restored your text and ref. - Ahunt (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The text added is not supported by the link - Israel Aerospace Industries, for example, foresees opportunities to participate in major upgrades and redesigns for the currently single-seat F-35 stealth fighter. IAI has even considered playing a role in the development of a two-seat variant. - Lots of companies consider doing things and its a big jump from considering something to what's been added - Israel Aerospace Industries has advocated the creation of a two seat variant.  Can I suggest its changed to what it says that they have considered playing a role in the development of a two-seat variant. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's do that then. - Ahunt (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I also noted at Fifth-generation jet fighter. Hcobb (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed it from the other article. As it stands, it is a proposal that has not yet been accepted. That makes it somewhat relevant to this article, but not at all relevant to the topic of fifth-gen fighters in general. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

ELP vs JSF
Normally I search for the source of the copyrighted material that appears on www.f-16.net, but this looks to be the original in this case.

http://www.f-16.net/news_article4462.html The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program has some negative issues that must be watched in the coming years.

The reason for this is that ELP is not an usual source, but instead part of the Oz-cabal. See: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/07/sunday-interview-eric-l-palmer.html

So, include, ignore or mine for sources? Hcobb (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Most of the issues mentioned in that article have been covered pretty thoroughly here. If there is a new issue then source it with that, otherwise it really doesn't make much of a difference to include it. -Nem1yan (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Things we have not covered at all:


 * Milestone-B
 * Defense Acquisition Board
 * Harrier spare parts
 * Blue Force Tracker
 * Link-16

Hcobb (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

New VSI contract
http://www.dailymarkets.com/stock/2011/11/17/lockheed-martin-awards-f-35-contract/

Lots of crunchy details and primary source. So put next to the "display system sucks" comments? Hcobb (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No such comments exist within this article, so no, it should not be put next to them. Please approach these discussions like an adult, Hcobb, and one that isn't coming in with his own agenda and biased POV. Also note that this is not a primary source, that would be the actual contract signed. This is an article reporting on that contract, and is therefore a secondary source, though I believe that secondary sources are in general preferred on Wikipedia per WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a reprinted press release. Therefore it is a primary source and depreciated. Hcobb (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make it a primary source. Did you read the references I gave you? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Updates section
I have deleted this section, at best its speculative and more suited for a blog or journal. The aircraft is not in full scale productions yet, so no one knows what will happen between now and 2019. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * But we know about the upgrade schedule and funds are being allocated for this now. Should we just ignore government spending? Hcobb (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, we should just ignore government spending. - BilCat (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

F-35 cancellation near?
The highly respected Globe and Mail is reporting today that the F-35 could be cancelled as early as tomorrow, if a US Senate committee does not come to an agreement on budget cuts to save it.

Article: Washington could scrap its F-35 jet purchase

We can probably hold off putting this in until the outcome is known as it is a very near-term. - Ahunt (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Guess I should get ready to propose this news item on WP:ITN/C if that happens. I'm for at least adding something about it on Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement. Marcus   Qwertyus   18:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of wrangling, negotiating and throwing around of gloom and doom threats going on right now with the budget disputes, something that goes way beyond the F-35 (and indeed beyond the Department of Defense). Per WP:RECENT, we should take care to wait for some of the dust to settle and not jump on every short term threat like this. Given that the F-35 program is currently our most expensive military contract and calls for manufacturing thousands of the jets, both factors meaning there are a lot of employees who would lose jobs because of a cancellation, and that we have a lot of allies and international program partners depending on this jet, cancellation doesn't seem incredibly likely. This is posturing to try and get the budget needs they say they need. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I would agree it would be good for the Wikipedia home page as ITN if it does get cancelled. This will be huge news all over the world. A lot of countries that have invested a lot of money would lose it all as a result of the US decision. - Ahunt (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, but that's a big "if" right now. By the way, I think that WP:RECENT also includes taking care and possibly not yet adding this to Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement. If this doesn't happen, then one day of articles like this might be the only footnote to history, at which point it is either not notable or only notable as saying "the F-35 was one of the budget items considered in the 2011 federal budget negotiations," or something. Let's wait for the dust to settle a bit before adding this anywhere. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Which is why I brought it here instead of putting it into the article. If the axe falls tomorrow then there will be lots of refs available and we will have a lot of work to do on the whole family of F-35 articles. I am all for waiting until the deadline passes tomorrow to see how this turns out. - Ahunt (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I reorged to leave a spot for the various plans to cut or eliminate the JSF, should that be warranted. Hcobb (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Note on recentism. Recentism has more to do with giving current events undue weight in an article than abstaining from documenting news. Recentism is only an essay, an "opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors, for which widespread consensus has not been established." In fact, recentism is both attacked and defended in the essay. Some of the faults I see with the wording of recentism are that documenting news events now goes a long way toward achieving a well-worded historical view of said news event. In other words, documenting news early breeds quality in the long run. Marcus  Qwertyus   21:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Including what amounts to little more than the daily posturing over the budget fights would be undue weight. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with you both. It is often hard to discover months down the line that some small event that was omitted turned out to be important and you have to go back through old news reports and try to find the ref again. I usually err on the side of adding too many details and refs, which are much easier to remove later, if it turns out that they are unimportant. That said, in this case I think this is too speculative at this point in time, although in the future it may turn out to have been a pivotal moment, but at least the ref is here on the talk page ;) - Ahunt (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like the F-35 is safe for this week at least. This is a CBC article in response to the one above: MacKay and Panetta firm on F-35 purchase - Ahunt (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The NY Times take on this issue - the program could still be cut Despite Threat of Cuts, Pentagon Officials Made No Contingency Plans - Ahunt (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Aerospace Industries Association letter
http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/sns-rt-us-pentagon-industrytre7b608o-20111206,0,6089162.story

I'm skipping this one because it's a bit too newsy and they're not direct players in this game. Also it's not likely to really go anywhere. Hcobb (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

video games
a mention that it appeared in the video game battlefield 3  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.148.38 (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Popular media uses of real aircraft go in Aircraft in fiction, but only if reliable references can be cited. Otherwise it is just WP:TRIVIA and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

13 Major flaws
Do we just say there are 13 and link to the document, or bullet list them out?

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/joint-strike-fighter-13-flaws/

http://www.pogo.org/resources/national-security/f-35-jsf-concurrency-quick-look-review-20111129.html

Hcobb (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything new in those articles, but they are good summaries of what is wrong in the program. - Ahunt (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * News to me is the bit about calling it the Lightning II because if it is ever hit by lightning there will be a bright flash and a loud boom. Hcobb (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL. - Ahunt (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Production Cuts/Price Increases
More unit reductions (and therefore per-unit price increases, leading to order reductions and...) are coming, but I'm willing to wait a few days until we get the exact numbers.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/05/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSTRE80404020120105

Hcobb (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * More news in the New York Times, after Obama's announcement, but no numbers. - Ahunt (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

http://twitter.com/#!/POGOBlog/statuses/154967403174969345
 * The budget "drop" at the end of the month will reveal what, specifically, has been cut, according to General Dempsey


 * So that's our timeline. Hcobb (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest then we just cache the back story links here in the meantime in case they are required when the numbers come out. - Ahunt (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * CBC seems to agree that the actual numbers will be in the budget, to be presented to congress in February. - Ahunt (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting
I found this documentary on the F-35 on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.170.44 (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No ASRAAM for F-35?
I've looked into this and while we have many many solid references for using the ASRRAM, the few sources that suggest it won't work don't really stand up.

For example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9016442/Navys-5bn-Harrier-jet-replacement-unable-to-land-on-aircraft-carriers.html
 * The review further suggests the planes will be unable to fire the British Asraam air-to-air missile.

However the QLR explicitly did not consider the ASRAAM at all. Hcobb (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What is your source for saying that the ASRAAM wasn't considered at all? You have presented a source talking about ASRAAM, but nothing not talking or suggesting it wasn't talked about. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see ASRAAM has been re-added despite, the same user adding the link above. Either the plane can or can not fire ASRAAM, the link suggests not, the paper is a reliable source can you explain how it does not stand up. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's the fnording QLR itself

http://www.pogo.org/resources/national-security/f-35-jsf-concurrency-quick-look-review-20111129.html

Note that the bottom of page 5 says that the QLR did not consider the ASRAAM.

BTW, what's the sourcing for changing the ASRAAM stealth pylons from a "can" to a "will"? Hcobb (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Killer look and feel interface
http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/templates/SIGNAL_Article_Template.asp?articleid=1204&zoneid=56
 * An aircraft identified as a hostile target is displayed with a small line extending toward the F-35’s icon. This line represents the range of the enemy aircraft’s air-to-air weaponry. As long as the F-35 pilot stays outside the reach of that line, the hostile aircraft cannot shoot it down—and some of the F-35’s air-to-air weapons have longer ranges and can take out the enemy aircraft at that safe distance.

Normally I like this source, but this article does seem to be slathering it on a bit thickly, so include or exclude? Hcobb (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article seems to present a rather dim view of the topic. Could somebody please change that? 67.243.55.111 (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Non-specific comments like that won't help much. This is a large article.  What issue or at least where in the article? -Fnlayson (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And I've removed the POV tag for that reason. It's a troubled and expensive project, and that's going to attract a lot of negative coverage. - BilCat (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a very problematic and expensive aircraft project, so there is lots of criticism to report on. You know it is a controversial project when even Republicans like John McCain call for it to be cancelled. If you have a problem with something specific then by all means please do note which sentences are a problem and we can discuss it here. If you are looking for a cheerleading article then Wikipedia is the wrong place to look, try Lockheed Martin's website instead. - Ahunt (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Naturally subjects like the lack of Blue Force Tracking are not welcome in this article, but you can find them sorted way down in one of the F-35 related articles. Hcobb (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about now, and how is it at all relevant to this article or this conversation? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's how he shows he's more knowledgable than the rest of us, by talking about obscure features that cost more money or using words such as "Tropes". Best to just ignore him most of the time. :) - BilCat (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II&action=historysubmit&diff=462071598&oldid=462011406

Hcobb (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * WP is not news. This is already one of the longer aircraft article that we have, with several daughter articles, and the F-35 isn't even in production yet. We can't include it all, nor should we try. As long as we have eidtors who think the article it too biased, but they disagree in which direction it is biased, we're probably dooing a good job of being neutral. - BilCat (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II&curid=11812&diff=462863719&oldid=462857436

USAF general testifies that the delays in the F-35 program are causing increased costs for another program. To ignore this is to understate the impact of the problems in the F-35 program, in this case to the tune of $3 billion. How is that neutral? Hcobb (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They are not causing increased costs for another programme the USAF has decided to spend money on F16s while waiting for the F35. This is no different to what normally happens when a new aircraft comes into production, in the US and other countries, some other countries have decided to cut capability and not spend their cash. But that has nothing to do with this article. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Generals testify all the time. The specifics of what they say isn't generally notable to an aircraft article in an ecyclopedia, as WP is not news. We should cover the major events and milestones in the program, not the day to day minutia, especially discussions and propositions. - BilCat (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of milestones, the new Milestone B (the old one got deleted), has been delayed yet again. Will we ever cover the issue?

http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2012/02/plain-language-forbidden-in-arms-buying-.html

Hcobb (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Engine price
This gives some insight for engine prices:

-The Navy is buying six engines – 20% of the total buy of 30 – and is paying $167 million. That’s 15% of the total $1.1 billion contract. Works out to $28 million per engine.

– The Air Force is buying 21 engines – 70% of the total buy of 30 – and is paying $521 million. That’s 46.3% of the total $1.1 billion purchase. That’s $25 million per powerplant.

– The Marines are buying three engines – 10% of the 30-engine deal – and are paying $387 million. That’s 34.5% of the total $1.1 billion contract. That’s $129 million per engine.

As you can see the prices comes down depending on quantity, but $129 million for a F-35B engine is a bit extreme. However is it worth adding into the article or leaving for now ?Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That blog is mistaken. The LRIP-4 engine contract of 13 May 2011 cost $14.99m for the standard engine and $32.07m for STOVL. (page 13 of http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2011/05%20May/Carter-Van%20Buren-Venlet%2005-19-11.pdf ) So $129m for LRIP-5 STOVL just doesn't make sense, I guess he's including the funding for a whole load of maintenance facilities and the like, which now need funding as the fleet expands. 82.31.7.132 (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Squadron service
This suggest that there are 63 completed F-35s. Even if half of them are trials and testing, that leaves around two squadrons worth of aircraft. Has anyone seen anything about squadron formation with numbers of aircraft assigned, as it needs to be added. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The link is dead or has problems. I was going to propose add a table on construction rates/ currently complete to article. I have seen nothing on any squadrons having F35 assigned. I also think by US Navy and US Air Force are doing separate activities for test/trial/ and certification. perhaps for US Navy some are technically assigned to VX-23 squadron at Patuxent River, MD. Could some aircraft be completed and not yet turned over or accepted by the DoD? Could some aircraft have been completed- and now not longer operate due to planned destructive/ now non airworthy status? Wfoj2 (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There may be some 63 assembled, but they probably have to be modified to incorporate fixes and changes from flight testing. Aircraft are usually checked-out and test-flown before being ready to be hand over to the customer. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Top Gun 2
Top_Gun Worth a mention yet? Hcobb (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * By consensus this sort of thing would go in Aircraft in fiction, not in the aircraft type article as per WP:AIRPOP. - Ahunt (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding that along with the ref to Aircraft in fiction. As per WP:AIRPOP I have added a section on "Notable appearances in media" to this article, which contains only a link to the "Aircraft in fiction" article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

FMS shields LockMart
The point of the linked to FMS-related article was that the United States government was shielding LockMart against penalties for non-performance that foreign governments might want to hold that company to. So why not indicate this in our text? Hcobb (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Your wording claimed/implied LM is late on export orders, which is questionable since they have not been any finalized contracts yet. It be better to state possible penalty payments, etc.  We're not supposed to be forecasting here. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Trillion dollar jet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkcHT9FZohA&feature=g-user-u

Can someone confirm which F-35 is costing 1 trillion dollars, and is considered a massive failure (except for the defence contractors making the money) as an operational military aircraft and deadly for the pilots. -G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.153.78 (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Which F-35, huh? Read the article in the reference [in Lead of this wiki article].  The $1 trillion number include R&D, procurement, maintenance, and other costs over a 50-year life, and includes inflation. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The video is fun to watch, but it confuses a number of issues and shows that the reporter doesn't have a good grasp of the money issues involved. He also confuses the F-22 oxygen system woes with the F-35, so while his sentiments are not far from reality this doesn't add up to a WP:RS. - Ahunt (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Military–industrial complex Apologist LBT sez: "The trillion-dollar cost projection was in what the Pentagon calls then-year dollars, meaning with inflation included. That’s right, the Department of Defense really thinks it knows what the inflation rate is going to be in 2035, so it’s included in a cost estimate that stretches from 2015 to 2065.  Try applying that same methodology to the four-dollar latte you buy each day, and you’ll discover that over the next five decades it will cost you more in nominal terms than a typical house currently sells for in Cleveland." Hcobb (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * And I just updated the article with the new $1.45 trillion number. Hcobb (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * At "$618 million per plane" it is more costly than a battleship. Is the vast cost a topic for a sub-article? The way costs are increasing from generation to generation planes will become too expensive even for the USAF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk)

Double check the buyers
I removed the claim that Denmark had committed to buying the F-35. Denmark has postponed its choice of new fighters until 2014 (basically a cost-cutting move), and the link only states, that the countries mentioned are involved in the development of the F-35 (through subcontracting of various components). Norway has signed up, and in Denmark the F-35 is favoured by the airforce, but politicians are concerned by the F-35's high unit cost and undefined final price tag. This is why there is still a debate on the possibility of buying the Swedish Saab JAS 39 Gripen, or perhaps the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, while the consortium behind the Eurofighter Typhoon withdrew from the bidding process in 2007. Have the rest of the buyers listed officially signed up?
 * Mojowiha (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

three variants don't share one combat radius
This wikipedia page lists a single 584 mile combat radius (presumably the original 590 A variant minimum that has since been reduced to either 585 or 584.) I'm linking to an article that states that the contract minimum combat radius for the A variant is 590 miles, while for the B it's 469, and 615 for C.

http://defensetech.org/2011/05/13/f-35a-combat-radius-fails-to-meet-minimum-requirement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.60.130.94 (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean, are you saying that the 584 miles in the spec section for the "A" is wrong, or the comparison that says the A is 584, B is 383 and C is 640 is wrong, note all the figures are referenced. MilborneOne (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

External fuel tanks
Norway brief sez external fuel tanks: http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FD/Temadokumenter/JSF_RBI-svar.pdf

Israel sez conformal fuel tanks: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/israel-to-boost-range-of-future-f-35-fleet-220748/

This article sez: Nada. Hcobb (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Britain will now order the B variant instead of the C variant
According to an article dated 10 May 2012 the Defence Secretary Philip Hammond announced that the Royal Navy will order the STOVL 'B' variant in preference to the carrier capable 'C' variant. His reasoning is that to convert the Queen Elizabeth class carrier to 'Cat and Trap' configuration would delay service implementation and double the cost of the carriers.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2012/May/10/120509-F35B — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djandersonza (talk • contribs) 16:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Cost Reporting
I altered the summary table to show the "fly-away" costs for each of the variants (to make it more easily comparable to similar statistics about other aircraft, which are most always given in these terms). One annoying thing is that the Navy / USMC has clearly played with the "fly-away" costs in the 2012 budget. The 2011 fly-away cost of a F-35B was $246m, the 2012 projection is $173m, and 2013 is back up to $197m which rises to $220m in 2015 when it begins to fall again.

It is hard to understand why the unit fly-away costs would rise over the life of an aircraft (unless it has something to do with a phase-in of the refit cost-sharing agreement the DoD forced down Lockheed's throats). Especially since the most expensive year is when the aircraft is expected to enter combat service.

So I have two questions: (i) what is driving these huge non-monotonic cost changes? and (ii) is there a smart way to see past the accounting and get a more correct measure of cost that is comparable to similar measures for other aircraft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.143.194 (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the unit costs reported are so convoluted by a myriad of factors, including training, spare parts, weapons and, of course, politics, that the dollar figures are essentially meaningless, or at least not comparable from one order to the next. - Ahunt (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, the lack of a comparable raw unit cost measure is understandable in such a young and contentious aircraft (though I'm not sure its as true when comparing more mature planes). And there is substantial aircraft specific maintenance cost variation, as in the F-22. But, I'm not certain that training costs actually vary that enormously across aircraft: aside from initial set up costs, how does this vary across aircraft aside from unit cost? Similarly, aside from niche weapon systems that can only be fired from certain planes (which have grown very rare) how do weapon costs vary across similar combat aircraft? Why should an F-18 be more or less expensive to arm for combat than an F-15 or F-35?


 * Regardless, there must be some substantive measurement of cost that is informative, however imprecise. It is difficult to argue that an A-10 is cheaper than an F-15 which is cheaper than an F-35 when considering the DoD's choices about close-air-support alternatives. Is there no meaningful numerical measure of this ordering? Would using the federal budget's reporting of fly-away and gross weapon system unit cost be so unreasonable? If this is obfuscated deliberately, does that mean we should abandon our efforts to measure cost?


 * Perhaps giving support to Ahunt's concern, the question troubling me is comparing the "B" and "C" variants. The Navy budget puts their gross unit costs within a million dollars of one another, despite the fact the "B" is the source of most of the design trouble and contains lots of extremely unique parts. Will these planes really have such similar costs going forward? Or is this an accounting ploy by the Navy? Do we know what the offer prices of the two variants are to the British (the only country likely to buy both)?--Sjk81 (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Parliamentary Committee text
The following was challenged on grounds of copywrite because it's a quote, I think it is fair use from a public document, can we have a decission please? Australia's Air Vice Marshal Osley said, Air Power Australia (Kopp and Goon) claim that the F35 will not be competitive in 2020. Air Power Australia's criticisms mainly centre around F35's aerodynamic performance and stealth capabilities. These are inconsistent with years of detailed analysis that has been undertaken by Defence, the JSF program office, Lockheed Martin, the US services and the eight other partner nations. While aircraft developments such as the Russian PAK-FA or the Chinese J-20, as argued by Air Power Australia, show that threats we could potentially face are becoming increasingly sophisticated, there is nothing new regarding development of these aircraft to change Defence's assessment. I think that the Airpower Australia analysis is basically flawed through incorrect assumptions and a lack of knowledge of the classified F-35 performance information.

and I added a Parliamentary Inquiry quote to the LO vs VLO in response to goon

In 2006 the F-35 was downgraded from "very low observable" to "low observable", a change former RAAF flight test engineer Peter Goon likened to increasing the radar cross section from a marble to a beach ball.

A Parliamentary Inquiry asked, What was the re-categorization of the terminology in the United States such that the rating was changed from Very Low Observable to Low Observable? Department of Defence said The change in categorization by the US was due to a revision in procedures for discussing stealth platforms in a public document. The previous decision to re-categorize in the public domain has now been reversed. Publicly released material now categorizes JSF as Very Low Observable (VLO). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.146.250 (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It still needs to be marked as a quote so there's no plagiarizing and to indicate who actually said/wrote it. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Because it wasn't indicated as a quote I rewrote it so it made more sense and formatted the ref. Feel free to tun it into a quote if that needs doing beyond what is there now. - Ahunt (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, the VLO LO reads fine, I reworded the Osley quote, see what you think of it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.146.250 (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A-10 replacement
The Air Force determined that the F-35B will not replace the A-10. If the F-35A is a fighter-bomber meant to replace the F-15E and F-16, is this still supposed the "replace" the A-10? (America789 (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC))
 * Yes, it is also meant to replace the A-10 in addition to the F-15E and F-16. Our sources state that very clearly. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The actual current A-10 replacement is the A-10

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2011/February%202011/0211fighters.aspx

Twenty years from now the A-10 will be retired and the USAF will "suddenly" notice that it has no aircraft for CAS and so stop doing that mission, sorry. Hcobb (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

A interesting question from me... How the USAF pretends to use F-35 to close air support? The A-10 have the Avenger, can carry a big load of ordinance and can fly even damaged. How a F-35 can do the same?200.189.118.162 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * GBU-53/B Hcobb (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're kidding me, right? Two small diameter bombs versus the usable payload (and full size bombs) of a A-10? (note, the 8 bombs capacity is for the F-22, a bigger jet than F-35) Where I can put a Avenger-like (large as a small car) gun on F-35? and the battle-damage? Do you understand where I'm getting now?
 * Actually the F-35A/C can carry bigger bombs internally than the F-22 can, but for all three models it is 8 x GBU-53/B carried internally. (The F-22 is not planned to carry any such weapon that can actually strike a moving ground vehicle.) Hcobb (talk)

First Operational squadron
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-marines-hope-to-stand-up-first-operational-f-35b-squadron-in-november-373070/

I think I'm misreading that ref and just wanted to be sure of this.

One aircraft and 120 hours of flight time makes for an operational squadron, right? Hcobb (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sort-of: lots of air forces have formed squadrons with initially tiny (or even no) numbers of aircraft. I think that the article means that this squadron will eventually become combat-ready, rather than it will be deployable from day one. I presume that this is part of the USMC's efforts to demonstrate progress with the F-35B so that it doesn't get cancelled. Nick-D (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Hcobb, what it means is that VMFA-121 is the first 'line' or combat squadron the Marines have formed on the F-35; the first squadron formed fullstop was a training squadron, VMFAT-501. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Helmet-mounted display system
I have re-edited the section on the BAE helmet to reflect what is actually written in the article cited, that if successful the helmet could incorporate the remaining features and be the final helmet even if a minor cockpit re-design is required. Twobells (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Photo of the new alien-looking BAE helmet replacement http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p284/keanfatt89/44229147helmetpa300bel3.jpg

82.31.236.245 (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

While I personally believe that Venlet will go with the British Aerospace version there is some news on a potential fix for the VSI solution. http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/05/defense-f35-helmet-fixes-050812/Twobells (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Update on the helmet, seems that Steve O'Brian believes that VSI can iron out the the latency and jitter problems http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/06/19/lockheeds-comprehensive-qa-on-the-f-35/ Twobells (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

LM Q&A 19/06/12
Very comprehensive

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/06/19/lockheeds-comprehensive-qa-on-the-f-35/ Twobells (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Union buster Obama
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/18/us-lockheed-strike-idUSBRE85H1TP20120618

Is there a more topical article out there somewhere about this strike or do we leave it be at this point? Hcobb (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And the strike is over.

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/lockheeds-machinists-back-4-year-deal-after-10-week-strike-20120628-01150


 * I suppose this means switching a few words to past tense, but not until Monday. Hcobb (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Reverse Earmarks
http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20120624/DEPARTMENTS01/306240007/DoD-8217-s-cost-cutting-strategy-faces-first-big-test?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE “We’re trying to say, ‘OK, we understand this is the budgeted amount of dollars, but can we execute to a lesser amount so we can use that difference between what was budgeted and what we think we can execute in some other way to buy some other good or service,’” said Shay Assad, who oversees the Pentagon’s “should cost” effort.


 * I've got some disreputable sources (LexInst) who talk about some sort of scheme to use the F-35 as a cash cow to fund other Pentagon programs, but here the DoDes are admitting to it. Hcobb (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible typo
The section on the CF-35 states "...the F-35C's reduced range (it carries more fuel than the other variants)," which is contradictory to other parts of the article. Which passage is in error? 13:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.6.242 (talk)
 * The Can government seems to have gotten the F-35B and F-35C mixed up. Hcobb (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The F-35 is a F-16 with an expensive layer of stealth added
Can we put



right below the F-35 cockpit photo to drive home this point? Hcobb (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry I cant see your point what has the F-16 to do with the F-35. MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * See http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123309140 Hcobb (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * it about a bunch of Japanese pilots flying F-16s because they had lost some F-2, relevance ? MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123238242 Officials elected to bring the F-16 to the wing because of its similarity to its descendant, the F-35. Its flying characteristics are similar to the F-35 so the training and mindset pilots are going to have in a single-engine fighter transitions from the F-16 into the F-35.


 * There you have it. The F-35 is a "descendant" of the F-16, and the source of the ref is the USAF. Hcobb (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * F35 has always been considered the "descendent" of earlier aircraft, it was even at one stage talked of as a "cheap" replacement for legacy aircraft like the F16 was in its time. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

world's only 5th generation international aircraft
http://yuma.usmc.mil/desertwarrior/2012/08/16/feature6.html

RS? Hcobb (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Reliable, but highly biased. I would say you can use it as a source of a quote "The US Marines claim...". - Ahunt (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Layoffs might hit F-35 program
http://www.lvrj.com/news/budget-impasse-clouds-f-35-s-future-167962276.html

Too crystal ball at the moment? Hcobb (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting story, but I think the effects on the F-35 program are really unknown now. The administration could decide to mothball submarines instead or something similar. - Ahunt (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Canadian choice of F-35A version based on range
Either I am misunderstanding something or there is a contradiction in this article. The report at http://www.parl.gc.ca/pbo-dpb/documents/F-35_Cost_Estimate_EN.pdf states on page 54 that the F-35C version has less range than the F-35A, yet the specifications given in this article show that the F-35C has 200 nmi (or 300 km) more range.--My Gussie (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I think you understand the sources correctly, but you must understand that there is a difference in the ways that these so-called facts are "seen" inside and outside the Canadian government. Also the official report seems to have the F-35B confused with the F-35C. Hcobb (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Add G-ratings to table of variants
One of the main differences between the variants is the allowable G-rating, so can we add this back in please? Hcobb (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

OUE review
Apparently the review on Friday wasn't that great after all.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/10/lockheed-fighter-idINL1E8KA3OG20120910

So mix this in with OUE, or scatter out to the parts where these problems have already been talked about? Hcobb (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There is enough concern and substance in there that I think this could be put directly into the time line as a self-supporting item. It also sounds like the program is in for another serious delay, but we will have to leave that until announced. In the meantime this will provide background into the delays. - Ahunt (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Time to replace the 2011 troubles list?
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/17/lockheed-fighter-idINL1E8KHA1K20120917 Major General Christopher Bogdan said the program still had a significant amount of flight testing to do, having completed only about one-third of the required flight testing. He also cited continuing issues with the plane's complex helmet, overall software development for the new fighter, and a critical automated logistics system ...


 * This is a shorter list than last year, but I haven't seen any real fixes for last year's problems. At least he didn't cite any brand new issues. Hcobb (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This could probably be added as a a sort of timeline update. - Ahunt (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

laser-powered Multifunction Advanced Data Link
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx


 * Doesn't seem like a RS to me. Hcobb (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The Air Force's premier fighter
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2012/11/mil-121106-afns01.htm

RS for the claim? Hcobb (talk) 03:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Since the use of the term is attributed to Maj. Karen Roganov, Eglin Air Force Base Public Affairs, I would say that we could include that as long as we indicate that that is what USAF public affairs calls it. Many analysts would disagree, since it isn't in operational service yet. - Ahunt (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

$128 million
http://defense-update.com/20120910_f35_japan.html the current year cost of $128.6 million per plane


 * Good enough to replace the current cost figures? Hcobb (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22 Unit cost 	US$150 million (flyaway cost for FY2009) LOL vs F-35. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.246.17.71 (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

FAPing with the F-35
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=6d6705769d34d14d1bb773f765de3d42&tab=core&_cview=0

The use of FAP for the F-35 is a distinguishing factor from the F-22. (Which has no means whatsoever of hitting a moving ground target.) And therefore is a notable factor about the aircraft. Hcobb (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

No DAS
http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/20120902/NEWS/120902004/-game-changer-State-art-F-35-listens-pilots-speaks-authority?odyssey=nav|head But in the F-35’s case, some of its planned electronic bells and whistles, such as a missile detection defense system being readied by Northrop Grumman, haven’t even been delivered to Eglin yet.

Are they are flying without DAS? Do we have a second source on this? Hcobb (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * They are flying with DAS, in March 2012 Northrop's DAS was tested during the ATRE (Anomalous Transport Rocket Experiment) when NASA fired multiple rocket salvo's. The Missile Defence Agency confirmed that DAS could see and track the rockets, the decision to include DAS was taken in September 2012. On a side note DAS is currently being tested for ship-use. Twobells (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That test was on the flying testbed, which is a much larger aircraft than the F-35. Hcobb (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You can see the DAS sensors here, during the first F35 weapons test video Twobells (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Did the DAS sensors actually do anything there? Or were they just dummies? Hcobb (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

$119 million dollars each
http://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-lockheed-agree-lot-f-35s-171153721--finance.html Lockheed Martin Corp and the U.S. Defense Department have reached an agreement in principle on a fifth batch of 32 additional F-35 fighter planes, the Pentagon said on Friday, bringing nearly a year of negotiations to a close. The deal is valued at around $3.8 billion, although the two sides are still finalizing details, according to a source familiar with the agreement.


 * Math says $119 million each, but that includes additional costs above just the aircraft of course. Hcobb (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Photo
I'd like to replace the page photo with one that's a bit...less ugly. The current one isn't a very good photo of the plane. Who exactly would I ask about doing this?

NobodyMinus (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the place to discuss this. Which photo do you want to replace and which new photo do you want to use? - Ahunt (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I was thinking that https://twimg0-a.akamaihd.net/profile_images/1427926999/11J00226_006.jpg was a good replacement for the Chesapeake Bay photo (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/CF-1_flight_test.jpg) at the top of the page. It's the profile picture for the official F-35 Twitter, so it's in public domain. It gives a better view of the aircraft and lacks the (at least in my opinion) ugly decals on the rudders.

NobodyMinus (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * IMO the photo we've currently got it quite a bit better than the one you've proposed.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If its a vote I go for F-35 number one (without the navy decals). Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the current image is better view of the aircraft for the lead, if the other image was to be used you would need to find a source that shows it is free to use. MilborneOne (talk) 13:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the current photo shows the aircraft's layout better for the lead. There is also the issue of proving that the photo from Twitter is public domain. If it was taken by a military person on duty then it is, but if it is a Lockheed Martin photo then it probably is not. - Ahunt (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Canadian announcements in December 2012
December 6th Canada with a 45 billion dollar price tag opted to kill its soul sourced purchase of the f35 and now is reopening bids to alternatives due to the 45 billion dollar cost to their 65 f35's.

The alternative would be to adopt the F-35C for its probe refueling and lower landing speed, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report cited the F-35C's reduced range and limited payload as too high a price to pay. Although the heavier F-35C airframe does reduce the maximum G-level as compared to the F-35A, the F-35C will have both the largest internal fuel capacity and longest range out of the three F-35 variants, though it will be more expensive than the F-35A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.45.196 (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The Ottawa Citizen story seems to have been in error, or at least premature as the government has denied cancelling the proposed order, see this CBC story. - Ahunt (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

ability to pull 7gs throughout the envelope
http://www.edwards.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123330544

Revise the stat block? Hcobb (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

F-35 is better or J-31 is better for the export?
We need to calculate the cost, F-35 is cheaper or J-31 is cheaper?124.83.63.181 (talk) 08:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, give me a ref for a J-31 export contract and I'll paste that in there. If not here then over at the 5th gen article. Hcobb (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest I think cost is not the only factor in buying top level military equipment like 5th generation fighters. Some kind of alliance is also a factor, as that ensures (to some extent) that the jets and their spare parts will be made available in times of conflict (as the allies are likely to benefit from high performance of each others military). For example the Netherlands have considered a.o. French, Swedish, and US planes to replace the F16 fleet, but no Russian or Chinese planes.
 * Of course for countries with similar international relations with different producing countries, cost may play a major factor, but this far countries interestd in F35 are US military allies. Arnoutf (talk) 11:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Note that unlike previous generations, NOBODY gets the source for their fancy new 5th gen fighters and most of the value added is in the software. So you must really really trust whomever you buy one from. Hcobb (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That is very true, without the software source codes the plane is only flyable until the country of original disables it, or orders it to fly home. - Ahunt (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Good Source
Time has published Operational Test and Evaluation Force's 2012 report on the F-35 here  with an article about it here . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.97.110 (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Armament section vague & misleading statements/implications
I have just added "citation needed" tags in the Armament section to specific statements that I believe should be removed if no direct, specific support for them, which I do not believe exists, can be found. (If I just take the statements out, somebody will put them back in, so right now I'm hoping to call attention to WHY they should be taken out, to avoid that.)

1. The reference to two internal weapon stations for "smaller weapons, normally expected to be air-to-air missiles" implies that there are any other weapons that those stations are meant to carry. They are in fact only for air-to-air missiles.

2. I can't find Lockheed's statement that the load can be either all-air-to-air or all-air-to-ground anywhere else, and it contradicts (or at least implies a contradiction with) what can be found at many sources about four of the plane's hardpoints being dedicated to only air-to-air weapons (two AMRAAM internal sites, two Sidewinder sites near the wing tips), no air-to-ground weapons on those sites.

3A. The only official discussions of a three-weapons-per-bay configuration that I can find specify that the weapons they're doing that with are air-to-air missiles, not any others. The "such as" construction implies that it will also be done with other weapons. Based on an image published by weapon contractor Kongsberg, the F-35's other weapons are too large to fit two of in the available space, except for 500-pound bombs, and there don't seem to be any official announcements of plans to put pairs of 500-pounders in there. For that matter, it seems to be only AMRAAM (which does imply also Meteor because they're so similar), not the Sidewinder/ASRAAM type of air-to-air missile; some kind of Sidewinder (and presumably ASRAAM) option seems to be in the works, but I've seen no official announcement of how many Sidewinders per bay it will hold (it technically could be more than two) or whether Sidewinders would be combined with AMRAAMs or only with more Sidewinders.

3B. Also, the article right now says that a pair of weapon stations would be replacing the original single heavy-duty one inside each bay, but it's actually a matter of attaching a sort of adapter to the one, and attaching missiles to the adapter, much like how a set of four small-diameter bombs fits onto their carrier which in turn fits onto a single aircraft hardpoint. This is important because, while air-to-air missiles are long and skinny and would fit side by side, the 500-pound bomb I mentioned above is shorter and fatter, so it would need to have one behind the other instead. That means there's no arrangement that would work for both; if anybody were to put 500-pounders in there in pairs, they'd need to use a different kind of adapter from the one that carries a pair of AMRAAMs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.162.229 (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

4. Why is a set of SDBs called an "upgrade" here? Putting four small bombs where a plane has only a single hardpoint is standard usage of SDBs and the whole point of SDBs, there's no significant difference between plugging in the carrier for a set of SDBs and plugging in a single bomb, and F-35 has always been one of the planes that were to carry SDBs.

5. With SDBs, planes don't have or need a separate hardpoint/station for each bomb. As far as the plane is concerned, a set of SDBs is carried as a single item. The bombs attach to a single object called a "BRU-61" (bomb rack), which works like an adapter, attaching to a single station on the plane. The plane only needs a single hardpoint of the same type that would otherwise carry a single larger bomb; the number of bombs the plane can carry is increased by the design of SDB and BRU-61 enabling four bombs to be mounted on a single station, not by modification or replacement of part of the plane.


 * Let's blow your mind on this.

http://theaviationist.com/2012/11/30/cuda/ “A Lockheed Martin model shows how its “’Cuda” concept for a small AMRAAM-class radar guided dogfight missile could triple the air-to-air internal loadout on an F-35. The missile is about the size of a Small Diameter Bomb and fits on an SDB-style rack.”


 * So I guess we need to add that in now? Hcobb (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the message about CUDA missiles supposed to be a response to my points above about the Armament section? This talk page structure makes it look like it is, but I'm new to talk pages, and there seems to be no connection between the actual subjects here. Adding new information to an article is completely separate from correcting misinformation and false implications that it already contains, and nothing about the CUDA project could justify asserting/implying that certain original source statements about AMRAAMs apply to other weapons as well (#1, #3A), or that dedicated air-to-air missile stations can also carry air-to-ground weapons (#2), or that F-35s are going to have multiple weapon sites built in where they only have one now rather than mounting sets of multiple weapons on single-hardpoint adapters like SDBs' BRU-61 (#3B, #5), or that SDBs are in any way an "upgrade" instead of just another weapon the plane can carry (#4). Do you have sources which actually say those things, or not? If not, why would you want to keep them in the article, and on what grounds does it make sense to delete the tags calling for such sources? And either way, what would any of that have to do with CUDAs or anybody's mind being blown? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.162.229 (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If the JDRADM ever reappears it would be a ground attack weapon in AMRAAM carriage, and so the door stations on the F-35 would become swing role. Hcobb (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

...which doesn't really address even the one point that it's at least related to, and even if it did, it isn't even related in any way to any of the others at all. Is this strange non-response your way of declaring your intention to keep these known inaccuracies in the article, by indefinitely sitting on it waiting for someone to fix it just so you can deliberately break it again? Why? What is your interest in deliberately keeping it inaccurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.162.229 (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've just pointed out that in the early 2020s, a JSF could launch with two air to ground missiles in the door slots and eight air to air missiles in the "bomb" slots. So our wording is about what is actually there and not sharp restrictions that do not exist. Hcobb (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we get an F-35C article?
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-works-through-f-35c-air-ship-integration-issues-377171/


 * Just that one ref makes like a half dozen points. Should I shove them all into the F-35C section or scatter out to various carrier related articles? Hcobb (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I would say just put it into the F-35C section for now. We may need a separate article on the "C" at some point, though. - Ahunt (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fight obesity. This article is approaching 200k, and is seriously overweight as WP:Splitting recommends 100k. When we lasted talked about, a split to Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement occurred. I guess we could dedicate an article purely to the technical aspects of F-35, consisting of the paragraphs Design, Variants and Specs, and sending Development to its own article like we did with X-35, Procurement and Program. Or, we could let each variant have its own article like you suggest. Also, could we squeeze File:F35-logo.jpg in somewhere? (Annoying that edit macros such as tildes are gone - signed:) TGCP (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally I would prefer that we save the sub-type articles for operational service (if any), but if you think it really needs splitting now let's figure out how best to do that. - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say that Development of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II at 60 kB is the primary candidate for its own article. The main F-35 article would still be overweight at 140 kB, but would be more managable and to the point. TGCP (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds feasible. (my tildes are still working!) - Ahunt (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just realized that I would also like to include Testing 20 kB (maybe Training too) in the Development article. (I have to copy tildes from near the headline to sign comments). TGCP (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Should we have an overall refactoring of the article and then a split? If so which items should clearly be left in the main article after said split? My suggestions would be:


 * Overview of the program, three paragraphs in the header.
 * Brief history of development main to X-35
 * Design: Keep as is.
 * History: Keep as is.
 * Merge Procurement and Variants, with a list of subarticles for major users such as Royal Navy, USAF, USN (which would include other F-35C), USMC (Which would include other F-35B), Canada, Israel, etc.
 * Rest as is.

Okay? Hcobb (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have made 2 crude examples here: Main article and Development. By a stroke of luck, they are both 100kB. Not sure how they relate to your suggestion. TGCP (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I would think it is easier to remove some of the obvious bloat in the article, Program cost increases and further delays and Concerns over performance and safety are far to large and could be cut down considerably per WP:WEIGHT. One of the dangers of building an article day by day from news releases is it grows without any balance or measure of imprtance, at some point it needs to be pruned back and copy edited to be encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That is the usual pattern in building from news reports, as it isn't often easy to figure out which facts will become important over the longer term. So we build it up and then later prune it when it becomes clearer which parts are less important or even trivial to the story. - Ahunt (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

About times! Definitely at least two articles from this one. Hiberniantears (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is now 220 freaking kilobytes! Divide and crop'her, I say. TGCP (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is a lot of information that's been added regardless of importance or being duplication of existing content; much of day-to-day commmentries could be easily cut away. In my view, this is a case of the familiar Recentism problem on WP, issues that wouldn't have even been discussed or barely mentioned on typical aircraft articles seem to span for pages on this particular article. There should be a fairly similar level of balance betweeen the new and the old. That said, spinning out seperate articles for the F-35B and F-35C may be in order as a coping mechanism. Kyteto (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, more summarizing and less content on day to day things, i.e. recentism. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly doesnt need a split but a good prune, two sections Program cost increases and further delays, Concerns over performance and safety are huge and undue weight and could be cut down to a few paras each. The Testing section is more like a daily flight blog and some of the other sections are bloated with unneeded commentary. So prune not split in my opinion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with cutting it down rather than splitting the article. The flight testing text is far too detailed and trivial in nature and most of it can be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Concurrency?
The first sentence in the section related to program costs reads "the GAO warned that excessive concurrency in F-35 production and testing might result in expensive refits..." I think I know what the term "concurrency" means in this context (i.e. lots of different suppliers working together,) but I had to read it several times to figure it out. Is this just my stooopidity, or is this using too much jargon making it confusing for the average reader? Joel Why? (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixing. Hcobb (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In the Program cost increases and further delay sections, the first sentence references concurrencies, but it's only explained what "concurrency" means in this context in the third large paragraph in a quote. Perhaps we could remove the part of the quote that explains what concurrency is, and add a description to the first paragraph, or move that part of the quote up.TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Explain the 2 year pause pending possible cancellation in the F-35B section?
In the 7th paragraph of the F-35B section it seems like just tossing out that Gates put the B variant on pause for up to two years dangling the possibility of cancellation of the variant seems like it could use some explanation.TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We do need a rewrite from timeline to topics please. Hcobb (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Grounded
All F-35s have been grounded; I have updated the article accordingly. --John (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to think that the infobox should be up-to-date in this regard; if it turns out to be a short grounding it is easy enough to update it again. The infobox is supposed to be a summary of the article body and should not contradict it, as it does now. --John (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, but it should not be updated on a day to day basis either. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Take your point. Seems likely to be more than a brief grounding from what I've read. I'm beginning to see some more serious problems with the article as well. There are some serious proseline issues; long parts of it read like a day-to-day blog. It seriously needs to be updated and trimmed. I have made a start. --John (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, the testing section is still far too long and detailed, bordering on trivial, but thanks for making a start on cutting it down. A year from now no one will care what date the F-35 first dropped which munitions. - Ahunt (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Now it is starting to look better! - Ahunt (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

INCORRECT wing load
When you look at other aircraft- articles (F15, F16, others), the wing load numer is always linked to the loaded weight - except this article!

I read today this: Wing area: 460 ft²[245] (42.7 m²) Empty weight: 29,300 lb (13,300 kg) Loaded weight: 49,540 lb[192][N 7][468] (22,470 kg) Max. takeoff weight: 70,000 lb[N 8] (31,800 kg) ... Wing loading: 91.4 lb/ft² (446 kg/m²; 526 kg/m2 loaded)

this wing load - 91,4 lb - is for 42044 lb - not for the 49,540 lb

the right wing load for the 49,540 lb would be 107,69

should be corrected!

86.32.71.19 (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Misleading g figure
The performance section states that the F-35 is 9g capable, but then erroneously states that it is limited to 4.6g sustained. Sustained g is likely not constant unless it is limited by something like the aircraft's structural strength. Depending on the altitude, speed, and payload that the 4.6 g corresponds to, it can either be well above or well below the performance of other fighters. Also, if the 4.6 g figure is at any significant altitude, then the maximum sustained g of the F-35 is likely to be much higher.97.71.24.42 (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II section explains this with references cited that give even further information. - Ahunt (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

More on that, it seems that sustained g figures are much lower for legacy aircraft anyway. http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-16A_Block_15_Falcon_SAC_-_March_1984.pdf See page 7 in the lower left corner of the first reference and you'll notice throughout the F-16A's speed range it does not posses a Sustained G capacity in excess of 3.8G, thus the F-35A's 4.6G capability is still an improvement of .8G, if the base conditions of operating at 30,000 ft and minimum weight with full AB remain constant between both tests. (I suspect that they do.) You'll also note that the sustained maneuver from initial speed (X) and altitude (Y) is highly variable, and why it's likely that both the statement that the F-35A is capable of 7G maneuvers throughout the envelope is equally true with the statement that due to Lift/Drag the sustained limit is lower for the F-35A than the F-35C since the C model possesses much more wing area. http://www.edwards.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123330544 I am becoming increasingly worried that this page is becoming a mouthpiece for people interested in advocating for the cancellation of the aircraft rather than an objective factual explanation of the aircraft, its features, and its history. Calvinstrikesagain (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Kenneth F. McKenzie, Jr. is an opinion writer?
BilCat says that this guy...

https://slsp.manpower.usmc.mil/gosa/biographies/rptBiography.asp?PERSON_ID=199&PERSON_TYPE=General Major General Kenneth F. McKenzie, Jr. USMC Representative to the Quadrennial Defense Review

Is just an opinion writer? Really? What exactly does it take to become a notable source then? Hcobb (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't say he was an opinion "writer", just that this is simply his opinion, regardless of who he is, which your addition doesn't even say. If his opinion is notable becasue of who he is, the addition needs to say that, and explain why it matters. NOTNEWS still applies regardless. You are just adding more cruft to the article when it is in dire need of having all the previous cruft that you added removed, or at least edited down to something better than a list of "He said this" or "they said that". - BilCat (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Henry, if I've said it once I'll say it to you again a thousand times until you get it: "Avoid stating opinions as facts." per WP:Neutral point of view. As always, it's not what you or who said it but how it is being said. Capisce~? (PS: Come on, you're better than that... and despite our repeated advices to you, why are you doing this nonsense time and again??? Zzz...) -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 19:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Dave, I wrote that McKenzie stated that the F-35 was required. Not that the requirement was a matter of fact. Hcobb (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Need a second source for a bogus sounding claim
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/04/10/lockheed-promises-tailhook-fix-to-navys-f-35c/ The Navy was adding thermite coating to the flight decks to guard against the heat blast from the vertical-lift engines of the F-35Bs, Darrah said.


 * I hope that the reporter got the quote wrong on this one. Do we have a second source for this claim? Hcobb (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I would assume that was a typo and he meant "thermal", not thermite!!! - Ahunt (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've asked the Rear Adm. to clarify his position. And they're fixing it now. Hcobb (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Good move! Refs often need fixing! - Ahunt (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

VT basing controversy
I have a WP:COI (I live in the area and am strongly opposed), but I wanted to float the idea of covering the KBTV (Burlington, Vermont) basing controversy, which has met opposition locally (far more than at other possible bases):    Any thoughts? —Ignatzmicetalkcontribs 03:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Similar concerns have been raised about the locations of F-35 bases in Australia, and there's a paragraph on this topic at the end of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II section. Were you thinking of adding something there? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, something like that (though I'm not exactly sure why it's in the "stealth" section).  Ignatz mice•talk 16:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The subsection is "Stealth and signatures". Noise is one signature. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Doubts cast on price drop
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/145257/f_35-cost-decline-due-to-lower-labor-costs.html


 * As he's employed by Northrop Grumman Corporation I'm not sure if Giovanni de Briganti counts as a neutral third party here. So include or not? Hcobb (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Mmmm a 1.1% price drop after an accumulated price increase of about 300% from initial estimates. Nice to note they seem to have some control over the costs (finally) though. 16:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

See also section
As a general rule per WP:SEEALSO, this section should not include links already present in the body of an article. A navigation template (navbox) would likely be a better fit. Is there a previous discussion about this I'm not aware of? --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Progress with the RAAF
The RAAF claimed a little while ago both of their F-35A testing airframes (they noted them as AU-1 and AU-2) are under construction and are expected to be delivered in 2014 while crews are expected to begin training on the new system at eglin air base this year.

http://australianaviation.com.au/2012/11/a35-for-raaf-f-35s/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.241.157 (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

How serious is the Taiwan feeler?
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?shop=dae&modele=release&prod=146478&cat=3

This is from the independent nation state that won't even buy new engines for their F-16s. Hcobb (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The article makes it sound more political than a serious order at this point. Perhaps they are looking for financial assistance on the deal? Regardless it could be put in the article with this ref as a sort of tentative inquiry. - Ahunt (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)