Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II/Archive 2

message: I removed this section until it can be substantiated:
:The JSF (F-35) design is based on the soviet Yakovlev-41 supersonic, VTOL naval fighter-bomber plane. The blueprints were sold by the cash-strapped Yakovlev bureau in the early 90's. The USA refined the plans previously made by Yakovlev for a land-based STOL variant dubbed Yak-141 into the F-35. The soviet's two small vertical lift jet engines were thrown out, while Rolls-Royce developed a new powerplant, based on the soviet swiveling-tailpipe design, which could also spin a large, horizontal central fan for cold lift thrust. Other than that, the Yak-141 shape changed relatively little, mostly to boost stealth capabilities and incorporate hidden weapons bays. Internally a lot has been changed, but structurally and with regards to electronics, the plane was essentially redesigned. -Joseph (Talk) 19:53, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)
The above indeed is inaccurate. It should say that Yak-141 inspired the F-35, since they are two completely different aircrafts. I found something on the JSF official website:
:The exhaust from the engine flows through the 3 Bearing Swivel Nozzle (3BSN). The 3BSN nozzle, developed by Rolls-Royce, was patterned along the lines of the exhaust system on the Yakovlev Yak-141 STOVL prototype that flew at the 1992 Farnborough air show. A US Navy program also developed swivel nozzles in the late 1960's and was proposed for a supersonic STOVL design by Convair (one of the Lockheed Martin heritage companies) in the early 1970's. (JSF Concept) Jigen III
Thanks for removing that fanboy tripe about the F-35 being based on the Yak-141.  Lockheed purchased Yakovlev's lift fan performance data and nothing more.
::It is a matter of fact that F-35 is much as "Yakovlesky", as the Tu-144 was "Konkordsky". Since Lockhead did pay the russkies hard cash for all the blueprints, technology and mock-ups they got, I see no problem admitting it, apart form shattering the yankees' sense of exceptionless technological superiorty. The Yak-41/141 connection should be definitely mentioned in the article, because its entire omission is definitely biased! 195.70.32.136 10:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yak-41 

message: Perhaps there should be a section on overall costs, similair to the paragraph on partnership levels, but including the US' share? —Aiden 20:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall Costs 

message: The primary customers are the armed forces of the United States (USAF, USN, and USMC) and the United Kingdom (RAF and RN). There are three levels of international participation for the eight countries contributing to the program. The United Kingdom is the sole level I partner, contributing a little over $2 billion. Level II partners are Italy and the Netherlands, contributing $1 billion and $800 million respectively. At level III are Turkey ($175 million), Australia ($144 million), Norway ($122 million), Denmark ($110 million), and Canada ($100 million)
Where in the article does it mention how much the US has invested in the project? - Hayter 12:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Contribution 

message: Is it valid to place the F-21 in the sequence section? I mean, it's not a US aircraft. Equinoxe 17:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's part of the designation sequence since it was adopted by the US armed forces as an aggressor aircraft and thus dubbed the F-21 by them. Joffeloff 20:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequence 

message: An anon keeps reinserting a mix of speculation and original research about the missing F-24 designation into the intro. I've deleted this dubious info as it lacks citation, and even if it were true, it would not belong in the intro. --Mmx1 04:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense speculation about F-24 

message: I added the confusing tag to the Analysis of the Program section.  This section begins with one long run on sentence and I am not entiry sure where a thouhgt begins or ends. Sir hugo 14:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing

message: the F-22 has supercruise and stealth capabilitys whats the JSF got??
Plus the F-22 has internal weapons storage.  Wheres your messiah now ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by F 22 (talk • contribs) 
:Sadly you have bought the F-22 "smoke and missors" campaign that wows the public with irrelevant capabilities to make you miss the obvious shortcomings such as ACTUAL RANGE instead of some heavily caveated statistic like "supersonic range"...who gives a darn if you can't get to the fight or can't stay on station when you get there? 
:Are you a stealth expert? Do you know the per centages of stealth "reductions?"  Who choses the basis for stealth comparison for tactical relevancy?  How much stealth is needed to do the job?  What frequency spectrums are important?  What is the reliability and maintainability of the stealth?  If you can't answer these questions, then you shouldn't be making a recommendation!
:The JSF is a strike aircraft and is designed to be one.  The F-22's bomb-carriage and bomb-dropping capabilites pale in comparison to the JSF F-35.  Try comparing relevant capabilities.  Ask yourself what capability is more relevant today -- shooting down an advanced fighter or flying a long way to drop many accurate weapons??  Oh yeah...don't forget to factor in cost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.57.213 (talk • contribs) 
look mate.  The f 22 is the best jet/bomber fighter in the world!  There is nothing that can compair to the awesome power of the raptor!  Do you even know what supercruise is!  I dont think you do.  You are saying that being able to travel a 1.6 mach or over. with useing after burners is worthless.  You say the raptor dosnt have range what about supercruise mate.  why dosnt the great Jsf have it them!  The jsf dosnt even exist yet and people are all ready saying its our messiah.  It may be cheaper now but it will go up will the raptor goes down.  
The F 22 has the ability of stealth.  And yes stealth is easy to maintain mate!  seven f 22s took on 35 F-15s and the F-22s didnt suffer a single loss,  because of their stealth and you call stealth worthless.  It is estimated that the F-22 could take 15 su-35 fighters on and win.  The JSF is all talk and no action while the raptor is action!!!!!!!!!! 
The F-22 has internal weapons storage how can that be bad!  Also how do we know whats going to happen in the future.  Who knows we might go to war with a nation with good fighters.  Stop trying to predict the future, and buy the F-22 raptor!
Anyway who wants a single engine aircraft?  Not me.  Not even Albania! 
Performance
::This may be true but the F-22 lacks the capability to drop gravity aided nuclear weapons, whereas the JSF can. This function will become more and more important in the future.  
The F-22 cant even take off/land on a Short runway (STOL)! This function will be essential for the new carriers like the CVN-80.
:No, the awesome power of the raptor is nothing compared with the awesome power of Chuck Norris. --Mmx1 17:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing this whole section is a joke? "Anyway who wants a single engine aircraft?  Not me.  Not even Albania!"? Eh, the United States, to the tune of 3,000 aircraft. Also purchased 1 or 2 F-16s!!! Keep your feet on the ground folks. Mark83 19:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The F-22 is better get with the times man! 

message: Maximum speed: >Mach 2.54...
Speed ain't everything.  Oh, and nice dragon comment...Winstonwolfe 07:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  F-15 

message: On 7 July 2006, the Air Force announced the official name of the JSF as the Lightning II. As such, I have taken the liberty of moving the page and adding a little bit of information about the naming. (Personally, I wish they had gone with Phoenix or Kestrel.) Sertrel 17:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed a few redirects and some articles into the new name. Joffeloff 17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Kestrel had already been used on the Hawker Siddeley Kestrel, the evaluation prototypes of the Harrier, so it would have been Kestrel II. GraemeLeggett 09:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems the F-22 Raptor's prototypes (YF-22) also carried the preliminary name "Lightning II". I edited that article the other day. --Charles Gaudette 18:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The way it reads now, it almost sounds like the U.S. Air Force decided the name "Lightning II". Anyone have a reference to the body (perhaps the U.S. Department of Defense) that actually did the act of naming the aircraft? --Charles Gaudette 06:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I fixed the wording to show that the USAF announced the name (not named it) and added a link to the official press release.Sir hugo 13:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just read the release - rather overblown. Rather overlooked the EEL's poor fuel record too, but that wouldn't have looked good in a release. GraemeLeggett 13:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No. I suspect that the F-35 will be initially referred to as the 'Lightning FGR.1' or something similar in British service. Subsequent revisions will be FGR.2, FGR.3, etc. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FGR? Sertrel 19:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fighter-Ground (attack)-Reconnaissance. GraemeLeggett 20:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The P-38 article was incorrect. The non-turbo version of the P-322 was known as the Lightning Mk.I, and the turbo version was the Lightning Mk.II-- not "Lightning I" and "Lightning II".
Is it just me, or are aircraft corporations getting more and more nostalgic? The A-10 Thunderbolt II was a nod to the P-47, the YF-23 Black Widow II was a tribute to the P-61 and now this tribute to the P-38. These aircraft guys seem to be a pretty sentimental bunch. Or maybe they're just running out of names and after 60 years, they all thought it was time for tributes. Just struck me as curious. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 04:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean "marketing instead of "nostalgia." —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the "customer" — the DoD — picks the ultimate name (although the builder gets to offer suggestions). Askari Mark (Talk) 00:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming

message: The latest edition of Flight International contains an excellent write-up of the current status of the JSF program; and contains a high-resolution threeview drawing of all three variants:
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/06/28/207482/First+strike+Flight+International+JSF+special.html
When someone gets the time, it would be worth updating this article to incorporate information from the Flight article; including advanced manufacturing processes; global participation; flight test plans, etc.  Jgarth 04:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, The Star Telegram has published a good summary timeline and poster chart.  This is probably worth incorporating as a reference: http://www.dfw.com/multimedia/dfw/JSFposterweb.pdf  Jgarth 16:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent in-depth review of JSF in Flight International 

message: BAE are building large sections of every plane in the UK and then shipping them to Lockheed for assembly. Does anyone know how? Are they put in containers or flown? Mark83 18:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transportation of parts

message: Because the USAF is replacing the F-16 Fighting Falcon/Viper with the F-35 will the USAF also swap out the current Thunderbird F-16's with new F-35's?
:The F-16s they have now were acquired 4 years after the jet was introduced. And the Blue Angels didn't get their Hornets until 3 years after its production. Based on that, I don't think it'll be immediate. And you also have to consider if the F-35 is the aircraft they want when it comes time to replace their Falcons. There could be another aircraft around in the future. 205.174.22.28 04:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thunderbird F-35's? 

message: Reading through the initial portions of the article (regarding contributions from various countries) I was left somewhat confused. It says that the UK is the only tier 1 partner, contributing 2 billion etc. No mention here of the USA or the USA's contribution, unless that's the partner that they are referring to (as opposed to the other partners (ie countries)). I can't believe they haven't contributed anything towards it, and yet no figure is mentioned that I can find. T h e M a v e r i c k 06:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose you could say that it is implicit that any responsibilities or workshare not mentioned are that of the U.S., since they are obviously the coordinating nation. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that one could, but I have to wonder if that's a dangerous thing in an encyclopaedia? I'm sure that most within the USA would probably assume that the USA's involvement (as designers and manufacturers) was "a given", but the USA's financial contribution wasn't (and isn't) as obvious to little old me waaaay down here in the South Pacific. I've now read the article and watched a wonderful 2 part discovery channel program on it - and I'm still none the wiser about this point. T h e M a v e r i c k 06:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The GAO said last year that R&D would eventually exceed $44 billion. That doesn't now agree with the pegging of the UK contribution of $2B as "10%" (and the citation leads to a frame anyway). We may better off leaving contribution percentages out. --Dhartung | Talk 05:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: USA Contribution?

message: Would it be appropiate to say in the article it makes an apperance in Battlefield 2 and a few other video games? --DragonWR12LB 09:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nay —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 00:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pop culture

message: I removed The F-35, which will have helmet-mounted displays, will be the first combat aircraft in history without a heads-up-display.[11]
This seems an incredibly daft statement. Did WWI and WWII combat aircraft really have HUD's !?
I've replaced it with something a little less blind to history.--62.173.76.218 11:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HUD 

message: 'Known as the Fighter jet'? What the hell? Where did you get that from? --Joffeloff 13:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is "featured article"-day. Please bare with us as silly interested people mischievously freely edit the article. --Charles Gaudette 20:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I mistaken or wasn't it policy to semi-protect pages linked from the front page? --Mmx1 21:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Frequently it happens because of vandalism, but it isn't standard (yet). --Dhartung | Talk 23:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'The Fighter jet'? 

message: As I know, bodies of F-35s are going to be produced by Turkish factories. Also Turkish Airforce will start to use the F-35 as the primary air force by the year 2013. With respect, Deliogul 10:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't know either one for a fact, as neither has been established. Certainly the Turkish workshare has not yet been defined, and neither have any of their delivery dates. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been repeatably stated that all JSF will be assembled in the U.S. However many companies and countries would like work share in the JSF and keep talking up their chances but so far it is only wishful thinking. 145.253.108.22 16:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish Participation 

message: some on is having a laugh, and i think you find you have to recharging chemical lasers takes along time. i think this is speculation and should be knocked out of the artical —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.244.246.25 (talk • contribs) July 27, 2006 15:06:24 GMT
We have no reason to suspect otherwise, and the information comes from reputable sources. Quite to the contrary, it is you who would need to show that the energy weapons business is false. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  laser energy wepons tripe 

message: This article states that the P&W F135 delivers 165 kN whereas it actually delivers 177 kN. AAK 14:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine Thrust 

message: Can we be careful about additions so as not to lose FA status? The new content is choppy and of very poor quality.
*Air Force/Navy/Vertical are poor designators as the purchasing decisions are in flux - better to stick to the F-35/A/B/C designators.
*we do not need a 40-year history of the VSTOL concept in the F-35C section. That belongs in VSTOL, not here. Touch on the past and highlights briefly, but this is ridiculous.
--Mmx1 01:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The F35-B section is out of proportion to the discussion of the other variants, largely because it contains material that is interesting but not directly relevant.  Anyone feel like pruning it, and perhaps moving some of the material to another article (e.g. STOVL)? Countersubject 12:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a stab at it. It was rediculous - an almost complete history of STOVL flight does not belong here. Also far too much analysis about X-32. That's not important in this context. A brief summary is fine, but full analysis belongs at X-32 article. Mark83 13:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New additions 

message: I really don't like the entire analysis section.  Encyclopedias by their nature should provide only plain information; the reader is responsible for his own analysis, for better or for worse.  This "Analysis" is decent editorializing, but it belongs in Air International or Air & Space magazine.  What critics, proponents, advocates, defenders, theorists or analysts believe is of no concern to a reference on the F-35.  Those people should all form their opinions based on the Wikipedia entry (and other reference works), and the Wikipedia entry should not reproduce them.  They are all POV interpretations of the facts.  They would be fine in a "balanced" news or magazine article, but in an encyclopedia they are inappropriate.
At the end of the day it's all a bunch of very weasel-wordy "he said she said," cited or not.  And I mean all of it, not the parts that I personally disagree with.
::see WP:NPOV --Mmx1 17:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I agree, it's an odd section to have in an encyclopedia. By definition, "analysis" calls for "judgment" and judgment is shaped by one's POV. Moreover, much of what is currently in this section isn't so much "analysis" as it is a "catch-all" collection of issues, problems encountered (and dealt with), criticisms, and responses to same. The planned procurement information, including the possible USAF STOVL purchase would better fit in the 'Program History' ... and the 'Future of the JSF' subsection is more about speculation regarding UCAVs than about the future of the F-35. --Askari Mark | Talk 03:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "analysis" 

message: for a "Propulsion system for a vertical and short takeoff and landing aircraft" was invented by Bevilaqua; Paul M. (Santa Clarita, CA), and assigned to Lockheed Corporation. According to a February 26, 2004 LM press release, "Rolls-Royce, under contract to Pratt & Whitney, is developing the lift fan for all future STOVL F-35s", but Bevilaqua (for LM) invented the shaft-driven lift fan. I would think that the article should say LM not RR for the patent. Dual Freq 13:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that correction and sorry for jumping on my high horse too quickly! Mark83 15:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shaft driven lift fan is nothing particularly new Vanguard Omniplane of 1959 so the LM approach must have some particular aspect that is patentable, though whether it is notable - one would have to read through it all.GraemeLeggett 15:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * Perhaps a better citation link might be , but I rather like seeing Paul get his dues, so perhaps Dual Freq's citation could be moved to External References? --Askari Mark | Talk 17:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Patent

message: The era of the manned fighter plane may be coming to an end, because the US Air Force is concentrating on unmmanned fighter planes, but the manned fighter plane has dominated the skies of the world for almost a century and more than 1,000 manned fighter types have been developed, built, and flown so far.
*I suppose whoever posted this here meant it to go in the main article rather than the Talk page, but it seems rather incongruous to say "the US Air Force is concentrating on unmmanned fighter planes" when the only major (unclassified) UCAV program was recently canceled. What is more likely is that the era of manned reconnaissance aircraft is coming to an end since that's where almost all of the USAF's unmanned efforts are going into recce and surveillance UAVs. Askari Mark | Talk 02:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of the manned fighter era 

message: There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Massive navboxes, again. I propose eliminating the X-plane and Lockheed Martin footers (say, this coming Sunday evening, 2006-09-24) from this article. They seem appropriate only for their respective "native" articles. Yea or nay?  Askari Mark | Talk 02:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree more about the Lockheed template, which I have removed. X-plane template not so clear cut. Mark83 13:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive use of footers 

message: Could someone please explain to me the difference in these figures:
"Total program development costs, less procurement, are estimated at over US$40 billion, of which the bulk has been underwritten by the United States.[3]"
"through 2004, the JSF's total projected cost had risen 23% to US$244 billion, and as of April 2006 the Pentagon is projecting the budget to rise to US$276.4 billion."
The cost is variously quoted as being $40bn and $276bn. Please help!
TreveXtalk 09:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the $276 billion is including the production cost of ~4500 fighters. - Dammit 10:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Why the picture of the Harrier?  It just clutters up the article.  To be consistent, we'd have to add pictures of other aircraft the F35 will replace.  Better to leave that to their own pages. Countersubject 17:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.   It doesn't make sense in this article Not An IP 17:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Harrier 

message: ...would essentially also rearm the laser, which could be used even with enemy ground forces located too close to friendly ground forces for employment of explosive armaments.
Are the laser weapons that are being developped really intended to be used against ground forces? To my knowledge laser weapons are only envisioned to be used against missiles and airplanes.83.118.38.37 10:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the statement sounds speculative, esp since the discussed solid state laser is about 100 kilowatts in power, about 1/10th the 747-based Airborne Laser. However -- there are credible official references discussing use of the solid state laser against ground targets. This article  quotes an Air Force scientist as saying the solid state laser (mounted in an F-35 or equiv.) could potentially "selectively destroy ground targets such as communication lines, power grids, and fuel dumps, or even target the fuel tanks on vehicles." But with only 100KW of power, it obviously wouldn't be anything like science fiction depictions of laser disintegrating targets. It would be more like holding a butane torch on the target. Joema 12:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your reaction.83.118.38.37 11:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Laser weapons

message: Is anyone having problems with seeing this image? On the article it is just a white space with a little missing image icon on the top left. However, if I click on the image it comes up fine.  X360 05:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does the same thing on my comp. I use IE 6/7 on XP Home. -- BillCJ 05:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto with IE7 on my XP. -- Askari Mark | Talk 05:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I modified the image size, and uploaded it as a new file. It seems to work now at lower PXs. - BillCJ 15:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Following its relocation, I no longer see it. Askari Mark | Talk 18:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see the image either. I tried to Wikipedia:Purge this page and the image page here and on Commons, but no luck. I've cleared my browser cache and tried IE6 and Firefox, no image. I've seen this before, and I thought the purge would fix it, any ideas? --Dual Freq 02:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  X-35B Image 

message: As we get more information on the JSF, especially if/when it goes into production, this article is going to get very long. The X-35 is actually a different aircraft than the F-35, tho they are very similar (closer than the X-32 would have been to a production model). As we add more info, there might be the tendency to delete information on the X-35 and the JSF program. Instead, it might be better to create a Lockheed X-35 Lockheed Martin X-35 article for the bulk of that information, leaving some info here as a brief overview. This articile could then concentrate of the F-35 itself. We might not want to do this right away, but I think we ought to keep it in mind when we edit the older info. The JSF will probably get a thorough review in the next year or two, especially from the new-look Congress, so waiting till after a review makes sense also. No need to split the article if the F-35 gets cancelled within a couple of years. I'd prefer to go ahead and split it now, but I'll wait till there's a consensus to do so. -- BillCJ 07:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it should be Lockheed Martin X-35 (currently a redirect to this article). Mark83 08:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lockheed Martin X-35 article proposal

message: :As costs grow, there have been rumors about canceling the F-35B variant. However, U.S. operations in Afghanistan have highlighted a need for jump jets in unimproved battlespaces, leading to a hazy USAF "commitment" to buy F-35B and preserve the economic rationale to produce the STOVL jets needed by the USMC, RN, and RAF.  The USAF has reportedly investigated buying up to 216 STOVL F-35s, enough to outfit three wings. One option discussed and discarded was a fourth variant, the F-35D, which would have had a different propulsion system to increase emphasis on STOL capability over that of VTOL, a larger wing to allow more fuel, an internal cannon (as opposed to the USMC external gun pod), and changes to in-flight refueling.
This was recently commented out in the text. In the spring on 2005 (could have been 2004), I read a USAF press release to the fact that they were taking over the F-35B program, as their proposed buy would make them the largest users of the type. This was quietly changed back to the Navy later (I don't know when, just that tehy control it once more. This is not your usual run-of the-mill rumor, but I agree it needs to be sourced properly. - BillCJ 00:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you know I removed it. However I couldn't agree more, it isn't just a general rumour. In fact I'm nearly sure I was the one who added the bit about the USAF/F-35B back when this article was F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. But it's not just the fact that its a "rumour" which made me remove it pending citation - it is the vague way it is written. Mark83 16:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculated USAF STOVL Purchase 

message: I have uploaded this image and it has since been put up the top as the title image. I do not think it is big enough at the moment and I have tried to make it bigger by adjusting it to sizes such as 300px. Every time I do this, '250px]]' is written next to the image, as well as '[[' at the top. I have searched everywhere in the code and there is no 250px written anywhere. i have never had this problem before. Can someone else resize it please? (Make sure you preview before saving, because most likely it won't be right.) X360 07:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The New F-35A Image on its first flight 

message: The article doesn't give a figure for the maximum ordnance capacity in terms of total weight/mass. Anyone? Grant65 | Talk 19:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ordnance

message: Does the fact that the F-35 will be using a cold air lifting fan mean that it won't need to expend coolant when taking off or landing vertically, thus giving it unlimited hovering time?
perfectblue 14:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  coolant? 

message: The aircaft has made three test flights so there should be a new section on the testing. X360 11:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that a whole new section is needed for that just yet. A sentence or two would be fine. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need a new section for the testing of the F-35 

message: should the Royal Navy be on the list of primary users. i always thought most of the british involvement was down to the RN. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pratj (talk • contribs) 20:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm 

message: What is the best way to code the specification section to better reflect the different models?
Example, Wing span on the CTOL/STOVL is 35ft yet on the CV it is 43 ft
Wing area 460 sq ft for the CTOL/STOVL and 668 sq ft for the CV
All three have different empty weights too. 29,036 CTOL, 32,161 STOVL and 32,072 CV
Internal fuel, CTOL is 18480 pounds, STOVL is 14003 pounds, CV is 20085 pounds
I think this is important enough to show but of course would like to know opinions on this.
ELPusa 00:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specs for CTOL, STOVL, CV Models 

message: I read in the Australian press that the USAAF will halve it's order but haven't seen anything here (wiki) nor can I find a reliable source. Any word? Brettr 04:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Cost-of-new-fighters-may-blow-out/2007/02/22/1171733928733.html quotes the head of the Australian Defence Materiel Organisation as saying that possible US cuts are the F-35 program's greatest risk and Lockheed-Martin as saying that there's been no cutback in US orders. As such, the issue seems to be that while its likely that US orders will be cut this hasn't happened yet (BTW, its the USAF now ;) ). --Nick Dowling 10:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The 7 February issue of Jane's Defence Weekly has an article which states that the cuts are contained in the proposed US defence budget which is yet to be approved. --Nick Dowling 06:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: interesting comments, thanks Nick. Brettr 08:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reduced orders 

message: Should the Chinese new J-10 fighter be considered as a comparable aircraft to the F-35? From what I understand, J-10's combat performance is about equal or slightly better than the F-16C/D and I think J-10 is no where close to other comparable aircrafts listed there such as Typhoon, Rafale, F-22 and PAK FA MiG-1.44.
: I believe the purpose of "comparable aircraft" section is merely used to compare the said aircraft with other aircrafts of its time period, rather then a spot used for nationalistic opinions. Otherwise, we'd run into problems with people saying that 1.44 is better then F-35 and vice versa, etc etc. --74.121.67.51 04:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, that was suppose to be signed by me. --Steven 04:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we have any evidence indicating that the J-10 has comparable combat performance to the F-35. Manuever performance possibly, but there remains a dearth of reliable data upon which to make that judgment even with respect to the latest models of the F-16. In either case, the PRC's indigenous aircraft industry is still struggling to catch up with the Russians' level of technological sophistication, so it seems highly unlikely that they've been able to jump straight into 5th-gen capabilities that the US is only just now beginning to master. In any case, I'd certainly be more comfortable as saying the J-10 was "comparable" to an F-16. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  J-10 as a comparable aircraft? 

message: The Specifications listed seem to cover both A and B versions.  The C version should be heavier for carrier landings.  If this is correct, shouldn't A and B be listed in there?  Thanks. -Fnlayson 01:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifications 

message: well, i noticed the royal navy wasn't on the list of users, though according to its website they will be ordering 150 of the STOVL (probably, the regular veriason may still be sued) JSFs. i'm not sure how this compares to the USMC but i personally think that the RN should be on that list.
:Actually, I believe the 150 number is for both the RAF and the RN, with the split something like RAF (90) and RN (60). The USMC is supposed to receive several hundred (exact figure in article). As to why the RN is not on that list at the top of the article, it is because that list is limited to 4 users total, and the RN would make 5. THis is because the infobox is intended as only a summary, as the other operators are listed in the text. THere are vasious ways to decide which 4 users to list in the Infobox; this one was decided by numbers to be purchased. Hope that helps. - BillCJ 18:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the number remains officially "up to 150", recent reports have reported that current plans may call for only 136 or 138. Aviation Week & Space Technology carried a report back last November, I believe, that around 80 would be grouped into four squadrons to support carrier ops, with the remaining aircraft would be formed into two squadrons to replace some Tornado GR.4s. I suppose this would mean that the RN would be the "senior buyer", but if the F-35s are to be operated like the Joint Force Harrier, the split could be unclear.  Perhaps instead of "RN" or "RAF", it would be best just to say "UK". Askari Mark (Talk) 01:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Somebody would want to change that, I'm sure.  Maybe list them both on a line like RAF/RN.  That might not be much better as far as inviting edits to 'fix it'..  -Fnlayson 01:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Fine with me too. They've been trying to "fix" it for weeks anyway, I don't think this change'll make much difference. - BillCJ 03:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Users 

message: There's something I've been wondering about. Now will the export versions of the F-35 have the same amount of stealth and other sensitive technology as the ones the U.S. will have? or will they be "sanitized" and use less sensitive technology, resulting in less capability? Just curious. - Tsurugi
: From what's been reported in the Australian media, the non-US variants will be slightly less capable than the US variants. --Nick Dowling 05:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Turkey is a close ally too, they've been in NATO since 1952 and are level 3 partners in the development of the F-35. To further show you how close of an ally they are: they have production rights for the F-16, just like for instance the Netherlands. But you are right in stating there will probably be export restrictions on the F-35 to not-so-close allies. I think Lockheed already told a few years back that there would be a less stealthy version for export to those countries. - Dammit 18:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Export 

message: Shouldn't there be mention of the conflict between the US and Israel over the sale of the IAI Harpy to China, which culmanated in Israel being expelled from the program, though later readmitted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.69.118.1 (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a credible, verifiable source, feel free to post a link, and we'll take a look. However, I'm not really sure why that would be relevant here, as this is about the F-35 itself, not about any supossed dispute between partners over issues other than the aircraft. - BillCJ 05:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it does play a role. The US was upset over Israeli advanced technology exports to the PRC, some of which may have been based upon US technology. Recriminations led to a delay in Israel's getting approval to learn more about F-35 capabilities until it was too late for Israel to affect the design to the degree it would otherwise have been allowed as a SCP. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still no reference though. And what difference would Israel have made anyway? What capabilities would they have pushed for that are not currently present? Further Israeli exports to the PRC are nothing new; there was controversy over export of Israeli AEW technology about 5 or 6 years ago, and many F-16s have been exported since. IMHO it would take an egregious act by Israel to have even the slightest effect on US exports of military tech. or equipment. Mark83 22:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Participation 

message: Northrop makes many parts, but delivery can't be a major problem - road? rail? How does BAE Systems get its parts (aft fuselage and empennages, horizontal and vertical tails) across the Atlantic? Containers? Air? Mark83 22:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure of specific details, but naturally it will be whatever is most cost-effective. I would expect that most will be shipped stateside by container. Air shipment, like on an An-225, would probably be reserved for the occasional outsized or "priority-express" assembly. BAE could choose to ship just sub-assemblies to a US plant for partial assembly and then container it for road/rail transshipment as required. Wings, fins and tails are only mated during final assembly. This is surprisingly not a huge deal – albeit a lot of art and analysis. The Russians used to ship entire MiG-21s, partially unassembled, along with all the tools needed to put them together, in three railroad shipping crates. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I assumed containers. I'm so suprised this isn't a more public issue; I mean the UK is manufacturing major pieces of an aircraft which will form the backbone of the USAF for the next few decades. Now I know this is not a major issue - but I'm suprised the sensationalist elements of the media have not seized on it. And of course cost is the primary issue - To continue the Mig theme of your reply, that's why we're still making cutting edge fighters while Mikoyan has yet to display comparable aircraft. Thanks for the insight. Mark83 00:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone better not mention that Rolls-Royce Merlin engines made the P-51 Mustang into the venerable fighter it became, otherwise we’d have a crisis on our hands. FDR sells out to Limeys, compromises industry vital to national security. North American Aviation reportedly to close; American government capitulates to British monarchy, announces Revolutionary War 'misguided'. Oh, the humanity of it! --72.201.81.188 00:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BAE parts delivery to USA