Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II/Archive 1

message: The History in this article... isn't. There is no mention of the JAST program that lead to the JSF.
sugarfish 00:15, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem well informed. I suggest you edit the article -- Cabalamat 01:26, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. sugarfish 04:13, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  history 

message: I reverted the commentary on American unwillingness to sell the F/A-22 to Australia because it doesn't fit with reports on the issue.  In Houston's speech justifying the JSF purchase, nowhere does he say that the US wouldn't sell Raptors to us if we were prepared to fork out the cash.  Greg Sheridan has also said in The Australian (can't stand the bloke, but he seems to be reasonably well-briefed on such things) that the US Government has said we can have Raptors if we are prepared to fork out for them.  Historically, the Americans have been perfectly willing to sell their hot hardware to us.
So why would they not be prepared to sell us the Raptor but not the full-whack JSF?  The argument is somewhat more subtle than what appeared in the previous edit.  The JSF is going to be fairly widely exported, to countries that are less trusted than Australia to not pass the technology on to competitors with their own aircraft industry.  However, it will be rather politically difficult for the US to allow some partners in the project better aircraft than others. With the Raptor, nobody else is asking for them (amongst other reasons, nobody else can afford the damn things) so the US wouldn't be offending anybody by selling them to Australia.  --Robert Merkel 04:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The official F-22 site (www.f22-raptor.com) once stated that the aircraft would not be available for international export.  Also, many have placed Israel at the top of the list of potential foreign customers (considering its past purchases of F-15s, F-16s and its high defense expenditures).
 195.70.32.136 10:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian JSF vs. F/A-22 

message: Will it be capable of SEAD missions? Jigen III 08:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It had better be; most of the foriegn partners won't have anything else to do the job (nor will the UK when they're operating off their carriers... --Robert Merkel 09:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEAD 

message: Shouldn't they designate it F/A rather than just F? It'll do ground attacks like the F/A-22 and F/A-18. And the USMC version will be in the close air support role, so an A will make sense.
:Reply: Most fighter jets also handle attack missions.  The F-16 is more commonly used in an attack role than in air-to-air combat.  The F117 and F111 are both exclusively for attack and bombing missions.  The 'A' designation is more used as a promo gimmick than as a real differentiation between roles.  All jets are multirole now - that's just assumed.
::They should make designations more consistant. Marketing has too much precedence over practicality.
:::Not all jets are multirole now, an example is the F-15C, in the U.S. it is not capable of ground attack, however, the IAF has used it to drop dumb bombs.  And the F-117 is not capable of A2A combat.  So it is still a designation that is used, they recently changed the F-22 to the F/A-22 for this reason.  The F-16 was originally designed as a short-range dogfighter without A2G capabilites, that was later in its life that it was used for that, which is why it is only the F-16 and not the F/A-16.
::::In a military situation, uprated attack aircraft are as a general rule far more useful than better A2A fighters, as military use of A2A combat is usually restricted to those countries who have an air force good enough to shoot down a purely attack squad without suffering huge losses of efficiency (for example, chasing a supercruising plane with a subsonic model is not going to be strategically sound.) On another note, if I recall correctly from the F117A Stealth Fighter article, the F- designation on that model has never been explained, although some theroies have been proposed to deal with this quandary. As this plane can only carry a total armament of 2 missiles, it is not suited to A2A combat  as this greatly increases radar signature, and additionally defeats its original purpose, which is effective air to ground attack.
::::Does anyone know how the A-10 will be replaced?
::::--The1exile 01:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  F/A-35 

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

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

message: The article refers to two engine types, a standard and a "High Performance", but the lbf given for the high-spec engine is less than standard, but the SI units show a higher thrust.
# Primary: 1x Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan 43,000 lbf (165 kN) thrust
# Secondary (High Performance): 1x General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 afterburning turbofan 40,000 lbf (178 kN) thrust
:Fixed the lbf; they are obsolete and inaccurate, I did some rough calculations and found the High Performance to come to over 700,000 lbf. It is quite possible my calculations are inaccurate, but the lbf measurements are gone now. I also fixed some text layout, but I could still use some help. --The1exile 20:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think where the lbf measurements came from were different sources. From the Pratt & Whitney F135 article I can already see that the stats come to 178 kN for the engine, while the High Performance engine, the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 is also 178 kN for the entire system. There is a minor change in lbf, but I am not sure these are accurate; I dont know why the secondary engine is labelled High Performance anyway, if I can't find credible sources then I will remove this. --The1exile 13:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in engine thrust figures 

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

message: The information on the version(s) that will be used by the RAF is not consistent in the current text, as illustrated by the quotes below: 
"Three JSF variants are envisioned: the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) F-35A for the U.S. Air Force (USAF) and the RAF; the Advanced Short Take-Off Vertical Landing (ASTOVL) F-35B for the US Marine Corps (USMC) and the Royal Navy (RN); and the carrier-based (CV) F-35C for the U.S. Navy (USN). The USAF is considering the F-35B. The Royal Navy is considering ordering the F-35C variant for its large CVF Future Carrier program."
"The STOVL variant had been viewed as the most likely victim of cost-cutting measures; however a USAF "commitment" seems to guarantee the aircraft that the USMC, RN, and RAF need."
"Even the UK, which has no CTOL JSF requirement, (...)"
Buxtehude 02:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which version(s) for the RAF? 

message: Wing area: 35 ft 0 in (10.65 m).
 
Someone familiar with Template:Airtemp might want to fix this (I'm too dumb to decifer the template). --Duk 22:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * area main=459.6 ft²  vs Wing area: 35 ft 0 in (10.65 m) in the rendered article. Should be 459.6 ft² --Duk 23:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifications section is screwed up 

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

message: I have removed the following section:
This dominance can only have been achieved by Lockheed's method of STOVL flight; in fact, the decision is said to have clinched the contract.The construction contract, System Development and Demonstration (SDD), was awarded on 26 October, 2001 to the Lockheed Martin X-35, beating the Boeing X-32. The first planes are expected to enter service in 2008. Announcing the decision, DoD officials and the UK Minister of Defence Procurement said that while both aircraft met or exceeded requirements, the X-35 outperformed the Boeing aircraft consistently.However, in retrospect, the claim the the X-35 "outperformed the Boeing aircraft consistently" may not have been fully accurate, and perhaps the claim is a little telling. It is not unreasonable to contribute the reason for the X-35's selection to the fact that the DoD did not want an airplane monopoly (just two primes by the 1990's). If the Boeing design had won, then the DoD would only have one fighter airframe maker (Lockheed might have been out of that business line if they lost JSF). Selecting to avoid a monopoly is a long standing, though typically "unvoiced" criteria. (Boeing makes, or significantly contributes to the F-18, F-15 and F-22 airframes). Fighter engine selections in the 1960-70's are a case in point; at the time of the DoD announcement the selected turbojet was hailed as superior - years later it would be quitely made known that the prevention of a monopoly was actually the overriding criteria. Typically features unique to the favored non-monopoly concept is then touted as the reason for it's selection, though ironically in the X-35's case, it was at the time its highly complex Remote Shaft-Driven Lift Fan. (Throughout the competition the fan was failure prone and actually did fail on at least one occasion during the fly-off period). The Boeing entry met all specifications and would have been less costly to manufacture (the current problem with the X-35). The initial goal of the JSF program, the procurement of a low-cost-of-manufacture single engine fighter to replace the aging F-16, may have in fact been achieved by the X-32 design team; it is not unreasonable to attribute its "non-select" to the other, unvoiced factor. Years later, once the X-35's cost-of-manufacture and weight problems became intractable, US Navy and European government personnel began to express interest in dropping out of the JSF program, landing a real blow to the concept of a "Joint" Strike Fighter.
===Reasons===
*Much of it POV/unsourced statements. e.g. "This dominance can only have been achieved by Lockheed's method of STOVL flight" — that is what I understand as well but it needs a source. or "The Boeing entry met all specifications and would have been less costly to manufacture (the current problem with the X-35)"
*Too many "may not..." "perhaps.." — unencylopediaic language
*The hypothesis that Lockheed's X-35 was selected because the DoD didn't want an aircraft monopoly (Boeing) "Lockheed might have been out of that business line if they lost JSF" — That is rediculous, that was the argument against Lockheed Martin, as it already leads the F-22. It was Boeing who were named as a potential casualty and lead to calls by US politicians for the ditching of the 'winner takes all' strategy
*"Years later, once the X-35's cost-of-manufacture and weight problems became intractable, US Navy and European government personnel began to express interest in dropping out of the JSF program, landing a real blow to the concept of a "Joint" Strike Fighter." — please name a country or a US service who has seriously discussed pulling out. The UK has, but as a lever for tech transfer. Sources too please. Mark83 19:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 8 2006: section removed 

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

message: :The biggest international partner, the United Kingdom, has invested two billion in development funding for the project.
I assume that figure is in US dollars - could someone who knows for sure please make it explicit if so? Loganberry (Talk) 00:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure where it says this, but the figure is mentioned in the first paragraph in the table of contents mentions "a little under $2 billion" as the British investment. --The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 17:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says it in the second paragraph of the "International participation" section. Loganberry (Talk) 01:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which currency? 

message: How is this aircraft related to the Su-47? I see little to no similarity. One has forward swept wings and the other does not, and one was designed exclusively for air superiority and the other was not. Unless someone can explain this to me I will remove the reference.
LWF 03:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The F-35 is a very real aircraft which is going to production - the Su-47 was a concept design for Sukhoi to test out some new ideas and see how forward-swept wings fared. It is in no way going to a production line. You can't compare them. Joffeloff 19:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so up on the Russian prototypes. I didn't know it was just a concept. Go ahead and nuke it then. --Mmx1 19:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it - it's really not related at all since it is designed to be a highly agile dogfighter without any 'stealth'-inducing shaping to the fuselage. It's more comparable to the F-22 or better yet, the Eurofighter. But even then, it's still a one-off. Joffeloff 20:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The resident Russian fighter cheering section. --Mmx1 21:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Su-47? 

message: This article has some major issues, including a long section of speculation ("Possible reduction to two primary variants") and several sections of jargon-laden potentially OR material ("Analysis of JSF program").  It also could stand to have its material reorganized and cleaned up, but those are the two biggest issues that need the most work.  If they're not addressed, I'm going to put in for FA status removal because this article does not feel like wikipedia's best work. Night Gyr 04:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the reduction section (the most likely subject for reduction has been the B version anyway, though I won't write anything until I have citable sources). The source for the A cancellation was speculation from some thinktank, six months ago, that's yet to materialize. I'll work on the analysis too. --Mmx1 04:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major issues 

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

message: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is a temporary name. The official name will be given to the F-35 before the end of July. When the name has gone public, the name of this article and all the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters must be changed to the official name.
May 18, 2006 (by Jeff Hollenbeck) - Wild speculation still surrounds the official name to be given to the world's newest stealth fighter jet, but not for long. While the options are still closely guarded secrets, the F-35 should have it's official name by the end of June 2006.
--- Src: 1
Name competition for the F-35 JSF
The F-35 is scheduled to be rolled out in 2006, at which time the name of the aircraft will be announced. The name will be chosen from among the suggestions submitted by the participating countries. Aerospace Engineering's involvement in the F-35 development means that staff are invited to participate in this competition. The winning Dutch submission will be rewarded with a special JSF VIP invitation to the Royal Netherlands Air Force Open Days. Do not forget to explain why your name is the best. State your name, address and telephone number clearly in order to be eligible for the prize.
--- Src: 2
SidewinderXP2 16:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Since when has the F-35 been scheduled to replace any F/A-18 Hornet? Says so in the opening section, but at least the Navy is keeping the Super Hornet alongside the F-35C. Are the USMC going to operate just the F-35 in the future and ditch their Hornets?
:F/A-18_Hornet and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet are two different aircrafts, I don't know if that answers your question? --145.94.41.95 11:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original F/A-18 Hornet first flew in 1978. The F/A-18E/F first flew in 1995, and I think is still in production. So some F-18 models are about 30 years older than the newest ones. Therefore it's likely the oldest ones would be replaced first by the F-35, and the newer ones replaced much later. Joema 13:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predecessors