Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II

Someone may want to add information from this news report to the article [1]

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

The war games, conducted at Hawaii's Hickam airbase last month, were witnessed by at least four RAAF personnel and a member of Australia's peak military spy agency, the Defence Intelligence Organisation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.178.179 (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think adding this is a bit premature since the information is so scanty. Is there any further information on this simulation – what model, who ran it, did they have accurate (which in this case means classified) data on both aircraft, and what Sukhoi aircraft were simulated (Su-30, Su-35, PAK-FA)? Askari Mark (Talk) 02:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do the Australians realize that the F-22 costs more than the F-35 by a large amount, and is not a strike fighter (which is the F-35's primary role)? Also, the F-22 is not for sale, and the Democratic-led US Congress shows no sign of changing its mind. So how Australia supposed to "demandthat the US Government sell it the F-22" (emphasis added) is a bit beyond my comprehension. - BillCJ (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The new-ish Australian Government has stopped talking about buying F-22s (after an approach earlier in the year was knocked back) and is now talking up the F-35 at every opportunity. The Defence Minister and Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement say that they're happy with how the F-35 is looking (for instance, see: [2]). Unless something goes badly wrong, it looks like Australia is certain to buy about 100 F-35s. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps its worth mentioning, since this contract went without tender, that both the Liberal and Labor Party of Australia recieved election funding from Lockheed Martin?--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's worthy of inclusion into the article. Just because specific details are not yet available doesn't make the source inappropiate. 210.23.146.66 (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why? The story is just political posturing repeating an unverified rumor. The F-35 is not designed as primarily an air superiority fighter, while the F-22 is. This is like complaining that an F-150 is not as fast as a Corvette. Duh. If something more substantial is forthcoming, along the lines of what Mark mentioned, then we'll see. - BillCJ (talk) 04:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nick, thanks for the clarifications. Rather than continue to edit war with these two IPs in hopes they will learn what it means to establish a consensus, I've rewritten what's theres for accuracy. Correct me if I'm wrong Nick, but I didn't think that Australia was normally considered "several countries"? Since the source only covers Australian reaction, I've moved the paragraph to the Australian section. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 07:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that it's even worth including there. The article states that only a single obscure opposition backbencher is worried about the (vauge) report, and his views are not shared by the opposition's defence spokesman, who instead describes the F-35 as "phenomenal". As such, this isn't worth a paragraph and I'm going to remove it per WP:UNDUE. The Defence minister has, rightly, requested that the Department of Defence brief him on the simulation ([3]), but this is routine for anything which gets into the newspapers and doesn't mean that the minister is particularly concerned - there'd be something wrong with him if he didn't ask his department to follow up on a report claiming that the biggest purchase in the history of the Australian Government is a lemon. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Australia's not alone in their dislike of expensive lemons. This is the type of story popular media and "public-interests" groups like POGO in the US just love, so it'll be interesting to see if they pick up on it. If they don't, that says a lot about the veracity of the rumor, or rather, the lack of it. - BillCJ (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The previous government (and now opposition) didn't do the F-35 procurement any favours by canceling the tender process for Australia's next fighter shortly after it started and declaring the F-35 the winner without ever really justifying why it was the only real option. The lack of justification about the F-35's selection has led to much more skepticism about the F-35 in Australia than is warranted. That they didn't learn from this mistake when an order was placed for F/A-18Fs out of the blue and without any kind of tender helps explain why they're no longer in power IMO. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I’ve found out a little bit about this event – unfortunately, much of that I can’t share at this point. I can say that there was no air combat simulation involved; moreover, the subject of the conference was a strategic-level affair that didn’t have a focus on comparisons of specific aircraft at all. How The West Australian came up with their interpretation is unclear, and there’s a lot of consternation among those who were in attendance over how it could have been so misconstrued.

While the anon is correct in that the source is not inappropriate, I’ve learned to be very leery about how accurately members of the general press understand and present technical or other complex issues. A good example from my own experience involves coming out of a coffee shop one morning and being approached by a radio station reporter wanting to know my opinion about a then ongoing drop in stock prices. I made it quite clear I was no expert, just an average investor, had my say, was thanked, and I left. Later on I had friends who listened to that station call me and tell me I was presented as an investment expert. At first I thought my friends were just joking with me about the "investment expert" bit, but no, that’s really how it was broadcast. In any case, I think my original call on this (very brief) story is the correct one. It’s interesting and controversial enough that more details are bound to come out, if there is indeed anything more to it. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Re-inserted section on performance concerns with new sources [4] and [5] and [6] as well as the original article 121.79.19.4 (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

And I've just taken it out again. This article should cover the concerns which have been raised over the F-35's performance, but the text you added is an inaccurate collection of weasel words, wrongly marked as a minor edit. The articles state that only a single MP is unhappy about the planes, and not "Some public figures in Australia" and you do not acknowledge that the articles state that MP's own party very strongly supports the F-35, as does the head of the Australian Defence Force. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nor does it acknowledge that the F-22 is NOT a viable alternative, because the US Congress will not allow it to be exported to anyone. The F-22 mention probaly doesn't need to be here at all - one might as well say the Incom X-Wing (from Star Wars) is a better alternative than the F-35, because the ADF has just as much chance of getting it as they do the F-22! I've added Undue-weight tags to the section, and these should remain until the problems in the section have been solved, especially since I'm not allowed to improve it without prior discusiion (but the IP can re-add the section without discusion!) The whole section needs to be re-written if it is to be included at all. Given the broader coverage the issue is now receiving, I agree something needs to be mentioned in the article, but it needs to be balanced by the alternative views and counter-arguments, including LM's claims that the entire air combat simulation story is entirely false. I think they have a better understanding of the issue than some politicians responding to unverifiable rumors, and, even if they are understandably biased, their valid views should receive equal coverage. I can attempt a re-write, but with the contiual deletions, the IP has added his own version back each time, reather than the rewritten versions, so I'm not certain it's wrth the effort just yet. - BillCJ (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

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

In short it says the strike fighter can't turn, can't climb and can't run. It says the US fighter which could outdo the Russian made flankers is the F 22 raptor, which the United States bans from foreign sales." 124.171.53.10 (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Dougal LongfootReply

Interesting debate going on here... I suggest the above article be incorporated into the main article and the controversial tages removed, once a couple of more rebuttale articles are posted. 210.23.146.66 (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Australian Defence Minister has said that the briefing provided by the department satisfied him that the reports of the exercise in Hawaii were wrong and that it "left me still confident that the capability being promised by the JSF team is more than sufficient to meet Australia's needs": [7] As such, there's clearly strong bi-partisan support for the F-35 and devoting much attention to the concerns of ill-informed backbenchers in the article is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I head an interview with him on ABC this morning, he also clearly indicated that they were asking for more information from the manufacturers and that if the F-35 didn't meet the claims / specs it is supposed too and / or goes over budget, then the purchase would be re-examined. He also clearly signalled that the report referred to had rasied serious questions about the F-35's performance which had YET to be fully answered. 210.23.146.66 (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The ABC's report on the story quotes the Minister as saying that "Australia remains a very enthusiastic member of the JSF development team" and that he sees no need to sign up to buy the planes just yet [8] Nick Dowling (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Here is another qoute: "Despite the poor results of the recent Pacific Vision Wargames exercise in Hawaii, Mr Fitzgibbon said he was convinced the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was the right aircraft for Australia"[9] here is another one: "There's no doubt in my mind that if the JSF team deliver all the capability they have been promising, then the JSF will be just the right aircraft for Australia, and will deliver all the capability we need to maintain air combat superiority" (my emphasis added). Now is or is not this article referring to concerns over performance? does this not also clearly indicate poor results? (although the minister would not reveal exactly what they were) His statements also clearly indicate that Australia is committed to the JSF IF (IF) it matches it's promises. No undue weight is being given to the orignal report, and the edit is a good starting point for documenting valid concerns over the performance of the F-35 held not only by Australia, but also by experts in the USA. 210.23.146.66 (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Transcript of interview can be found here: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2373457.htm Some key qoutes of interest:

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

(my emphasis added)

Here is anonther:

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

Again, with due respect to some of the other authors, it is clear that there are concerns about performance - these have been expressed by the Australian minister and Rand corporation. It is also clear that despite this, Australia remains committed to purchasing the F-35 IF (IF) they meet the performance requirements. I can't for the life of me see how this information cannot be included in the article under a section called 'concerns over performance'. Wikipedia is a living and evolving encyclopedia, as more information come to light it might well be that these rumours are proved true and countries will abandon the F-35 in droves. Conversely the opposite may also become true, in which case all the evidence so far collected in this section as it stands can simply be consigned to a single line about history of critism or something like that. 210.23.146.66 (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Would you happen to have a link to this communication between Goon & Gumley? I haven't come across it and would be interested in learning what was said. TIA, Askari Mark (Talk) 01:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

It looks like its all copy / paste from http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2373457.htm --Dual Freq (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

It can probably be consigned to a few lines right now. All the deatils of who said what are really irrelevant as long as they are in the sources. Rember, this article is not about opposition party politicians in Australia, so it's really not releveant that we include everything quote the've made on the subject. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and it's not our job to cover everything said on a subject. I do believe at this point there needs to be some mention of this in the article, but I disagree with the sections current placement and content. However, having several paragraphs of statements and quotes as if the report is absolutely true, and one brief sentence that "The F-35 has also come under critism in the USA regarding it's performance most of which has been dismissed by the Pentagon and manufacturer" is extremely misleading, as the LM/USAF reports specifically have completly denied the veracity of ALL the rumors, including the ones reported in Australia. That's why Nick is right to mention Undue weight - the section is terribly lopsided as currently written.

Please understand that military aircraft, especially combat aircraft, are very complex machines. All military aricraft developed in the past 30 years, anywhere in the world, have long development times and cost overuns. Just this past week, EADS/Airbus reported it is going to ask the nations purchasing the A400M not to charge it for breaches in contract regarding delivery schedules, or it will lose money until the 180th aircraft delivered, IIRC. And these are actual production contracts invloved, while to my knowledge no such contracts exist yet in the F-35 program. Also, if one take a look at the JAS 39 Gripen article, one can see that the JAS 39 generated a lot of controversy during its 15-20 year development. Yet that is the aircraft that the Nethelands, Norway, and a few other F-35 partners are looking at as an alternative. It takes time for programs to mature, and modern military aircraft need alot of development time due to their complexity. Finally, please remember that "Pacific Vision" was a simulation - no actual aircraft were involved whatsoever. This also means that if problems with the F-35 were revealed - whatever they actually were, which was not revealed - there is still plenty of time to try to incorporate fixes. And it might even be that the data the simulations were based on were old or faulty, and that there is nothing wrong with the F-35 at all. So while we don't want to bury our heads in the sand and ignore serious problems, it does no good to stick our necks out with obscure politicians trying to make a name for themselves either!

When you're ready to write a well-reasoned section that give due weight to each side neutrally, let us know. We "other authors" actually can help, and together we can make sure both points of view are presented in a neutral way. - BillCJ (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Don't be arrogant and dismissive - i understand about the development times but i think you are being blinkered and giving undue weight to the manufacturers and pentagons dismissals of the critism. How is the manufacturer denying critism of the plane not a conflict of interest? how are informed buyers expressing concerns undue weight? Finally, nowhere have i said i wanted all those qoutes to be included in the article, they were merley to illustrate the point that 'some authors' (i.e the two of you) are cherry picking the positives and glossing over the negatives, thus giving undue weight to the positive spin by the manufacturer. Please act in good faith and take a step back and you'll realise that a simple paragraph outling that (a) there are concerns about the aircraft performance (b) the pacific vision simulation brought many of these to media attention (c) some buyers and development partners have also expressed concern and (d) industry insiders (i.e Janes etc) have also expresed concerns (e) these have been denied by the pentagon and manufacturer. That's a tiny bit in the overall article, balanced, and when all the other material is considered, is harly shifting the weight of the article in it's entirity to a negative stance now is it? don't be so dismissive of us little 'ol IP editors, we may actually know a thing or two about the subject matter, and more importantly, wikipedia. 210.23.146.66 (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is me being arrogant and dismissive: I think we've had enough from users with a hidden agenda trying to be disruptive to make a point, and I now support removing the entire disputed section. - BillCJ (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC) (The precseeding was intended as a sarcastic response to an IP's "arrogant and dismissive" response to my thoughtful, somewhat pedantic statements. - BillCJ (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC) )Reply

May I point out that if you read the current article it is a fairly positive about the plane in a toys-for-boys POV kind of way. You could easily call that a hidden agenda (although less transparently pushed) by many editors. Arnoutf (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, you may not. I could easily call myself a millionaire, doesn't make it true (though I sure wish it did!) Please don't confuse a detailed description of a product and its (intended) capabilites as praise of a product. The intent of this kind of article is to present the facts in a neutral way, though the sheer amount of the facts might seem a bit POV. If there's something that's too positive, non-factual, or non-neutral in the article, tag it/fix it/remove it! But we don't "balance" that by adding verified reports of unverifiable rumor and criticism without presenting the entire story - that's not neutral either! And for anyone to dismiss anything a company says in its defense as automatically a COI is just as badd as accepting anything a politician says based soley on unverified rumors from people who may not even exist! In WP's version of Neutrality, we don't chose what we like about competing claims, but we present both views as neutrally as possible, if possible. It is true these critical reports have been made, but there is no proof that these are true as yet. To suppress the counter-views on the grounds that the rest of the article is "positive" is also bad, and certainly not neutral. - BillCJ (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fact there is some dissatisfaction among the partners (e.g. Australia).

Facts: the F35 is later, more expensive (both in purchase and in maintenance), resulting in fewer counterorders, heavier. Compared to the original promises to partners.

Unconfirmed reports: it is less stealthy and less capable of dogfights compared to the original promises to partners.

All things relating to the design section (which also explicitly mentions it is an improvement). Placing nothing about this in the design/partners section is not neutral; and such remarks cannot be removed without introducing an overly positive point of view. Arnoutf (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Then present those facts is a neutral way, including the relevant counter-arguments to each point made, and the fact that such problems are normal for modern combat aircraft. I have no problem rewriting it to do that, but have not been able to take the time to write it yet because of unrelated demands on my time, but I do intend to do so. - BillCJ (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think you hit on an interesting issue. Yes such problems maybe normal for modern combat aircraft, but many of the partners (e.g. Australia, the Netherlands and others) have developed no modern combat aircraft of their own, nor have they participated in the development of one before (previous purchases were based on fully developed versions as far as I know) - So have no first hand experience with this. This made the overspending (normal as it may be) breach of international agreements, rather then of national agreements. I think that makes this case special. I also agree it should be worded neutral. Perhaps a structure for the paragrah roughly following: - F35 does not meet its original specs by A,B,C,. While this has become customary in the development of modern combat aircraft, these problems have lead to debate with several of the partners who have no recent experience being involvement in the development of modern combat aircraft. - I think that would be a fairly way of putting it; does it seem acceptable to you? Arnoutf (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

• I'd like to see a reference about the F-35 being still overweight in 2008. They spent about 1.5 years on weight savings a few years ago. That's one reason why the program is delayed. Update: weight reduction 1, 2, 3 -Fnlayson (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

What I read is that for the A version (non-carrier) they partially compensated by installing a more powerful engine to armament etc. to specs (and not to increase unit price too much). This solution keeps weight above original estimate, and performance at about the original level, except for fuel efficiency, going down (heaver plane, more powerful engine - more fuel use). But some homework for me to find that reference back Arnoutf (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

"Fact there is some dissatisfaction among the partners (e.g. Australia)" I don't think that's a 'fact' at all as both the Australian Government and the opposition both strongly support the F-35 and it's a near certainty that Australia will buy about 100 of the aircraft (it's even listed on the RAAF's website as being one of Australia's future aircraft: [10]). Substantive criticism is limited to a small group of self-appointed experts (eg Air Power Australia) and retired RAAF officers who are pushing for Australia to buy an aircraft which simply isn't available (the Government approached the US for F-22s earlier this year, and it was confirmed that they can't be exported). The F-35 has received strong support from the RAAF and many other think-tanks (eg, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, and the Kokoda Foundation - which wants Australia to buy 200 F-35s!). The Defence Minister's comments seem to be being missinterpreted by some editors - the opposition is demanding that he sign Australia up to buy F-35s right now, but he is saying that while the F-35 appears to be the right plane, the prudent course of action is to delay signing the contract until next year (as was planned by the opposition when they were in Government) as there's no advantage in singing up now and development work is yet to be completed. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

RAND has issued a press statement denying the Australian reports that its analysis of the recent war game covered the F-35's performance: [11]. This seems to be much ado about nothing, other than being another example of the woeful quality of the Australian media's defence correspondents. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The infamous RAND report is available at http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/09/download-infamous-rand-air-pow.html. It basically says nothing about the F-35 and simply points out that lots & lots of enemy planes could force their way past the F-22 by forcing it to use up all its missiles. Hardly surprising. I would like to remove the mention of the RAND report as it is not what people think it is. Pmw2cc (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

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

The F135 is the main engine. The F136 is being developed at a slower rate as a contingency/back-up engine and also serves as competition to keep costs down, etc. The military has tried to cut the F136 out of the budget the last couple of years but Congress has added funds for it. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see. Has this been done with any other aircraft? Just curious. Ss9999 (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Nothing that similar that I can think of. They developed a different engine for the F-16 in the 1980s after it was in service. On the program that lead to the F-22, two engines were developed with the better one selected for production. This won't help improve this article, so I'll stop there. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Often an older engine is used on the original prototypes and production models of an aircraft while a more advanced engine goes through rigorous testing. I'm not sure if this was the case with the engine they upgraded the F-14 with in the late 80's early 90's but it is presently the case with some newer model Russian aircraft I believe (Su-34???).--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

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

To my knowledge, the Pegasus uses Water injection to produce a higher thrust rating for short periods, not "water cooling" to keep the engine cool as in a water-cooled reciprocating engine. The water brings down the temperature of the compressed air before it enters the combustion chambers, IIRC, allowing the engine to produce greater thrust for a short period. - BillCJ (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Water injection is a fascinating method of getting additional power out of a jet engine. About 10 to 15 percent additional thrust an be gained by injecting water, or a mixture of water an alcohol, into the engine, either at the compressor air inlet or at some other point in the engine, such as the diffuser section or the burners. When a liquid coolant is added, thrust or power augmentation is obtained principally by increasing the mass flow through the engine. Water injection does two things directly. It cools the air mass and maintains the same pressure by adding molecules to the mass flow. Obviously, if there is little cooling effect, only a few molecules can be added to the mass flow. Thus, on a cold day, only a small increase in thrust can be obtained by water injection, but on a hot day a sizable thrust increase may be realized. Not all of the increase in thrust caused by water injection is due to the increase in mass flow. There is also a cycle effect. The increase in air mass causes a tendency to slow down the compressor. The fuel control system adds fuel to keep the compressor going at the same speed. The resulting increase in heat energy hits the turbines and the compressor is speed up. When the compressor speeds up, it gives a greater weight of airflow. The end result is the realization of a greater thrust increase by increased mass flow rate than is obtained by the addition of water molecules.Ratsbew (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Another minor point to add is that water injection allows a higher fuel flow. The extra fuel adds to the exhaust mass but this effect is negligible at best.Ratsbew (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article should have a paragraph on program and production delays with the F-35. Wikileaks has just uploaded a year 2006 document which has nominal timetable on page 13, that should help give some honest treatment to this important issue.

http://wikileaks.org/leak/us-f35-baranowski-2006.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I fully agree, the program is delayed, way over budget (43%) and all kinds of promised properties have been skipped. Also see [13] and [14] for sources. It is like going to a salesperson to buy a car, agree on a contract and afterwards learn it will be delivered years later, with a smaller fuel tank, less efficient engine, and a much, much smaller trunk. And all of this for 1.5 times the agreed price. This maybe normal business when making sales inside the US, but this has been positioned as an international collaboration. Arnoutf (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you look at Australia's history of purchases from the USA, this is business as normal. Standard fare is for the cost to double, the delivery to be delayed 10 years and the main 'features' we choose the project for to be cancelled.--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The F-35 is between 10 and 18db louder as a F-15, that mean linear between 2 and 3 times louder. [[15]] Page 13. Resonance [16] --HDP (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Linear is a useless way to talk about sound. Nevertheless it is even more noisy than F16. In the densily populated Netherlands this is becoming something of an issue, especially striking is the removal of all reference to noise levels between the original order for F16 replacements by the Dutch Airforce (the organisation admits to be fans of the F35) and the current list of criteria (against which the F35 will be measured). This is currently causing some discussion in Dutch politics see e.g. [17][18][19] Arnoutf (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The F-35 is so loud that no adequate equipment aviable for ear protection. "Military Equipment Noise Costs $900 Million and Veterans' Hearing" [20]--HDP (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The F-35 is going to be a heck of an airshow performer with noise figures like that.Ratsbew (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Looks good to me. The F/A-18E/F order date info is way off. It was ordered in May 2007 and the new government decided to keep the order in 2008. See F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, RAAF section for info and references. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. The March 2008 was a dumb typo - I've changed this to say that the order was announced on 6 March 07. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

As there have been no objections, I've just posted the new section in the article. Further changes to it are, of course, very welcome! Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I hope this is how I contribute, hope this works. Anyway, something on the Australian issue. This year the US secretary of defense re-opened dabte insome quaters in Aus I believe, by saying he had no problem with the Export Ban exempting an Australian purchase if the Defense Department can get the Congress to agree. This was reported on radio and TV back home I believe, and says so in the F-22 article right here on Wiki. Did this occur? If so was it before or after Australia asked for the right to make an export application (as stated in this article), if after, shouldnt this be mentioned in the Australian section, as all indicators have been on this issue, that if the Australian Govt. does decide to persue, and can aquire, f22s, it will decrease the number of f35s brought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apis4 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have just seen this picture[21] of what appears to be a F-35 on the deck of HMS Illustrious.

I was wondering how this can be as I have read the UK is not to take delivery until 2010. --Alan Evans (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The 2010 delivery time is most likely for production F-35s. The F-35 on Illustrious seems to be for testing type purposes. FI article -Fnlayson (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think some of the dates are speculative. I've flown out of Malmstrom Air Force Base and they had F-35 fly there with 16s two months ago (I couldn't count them, but it was more than 1). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.83.140 (talk) 06:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

External link (39) (linking to a page Lockheed's website) has the following statement: "...the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed...". The F-35's top speed is 1.6 Mach, while even the old F-104's is above Mach 2 (just not to mention more modern aircrafts, like EFA, Su-27, MiG-31). The statement seems to suggest that the F-35 is faster than any other fighter aicraft in combat configuration (this means with external payload like missiles), and this would be clearly false. 89.96.203.198 (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

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

The F-35 bays can only store two AMRAAMs and two bombs intern. The F-35 has the drawback of a boxy airframe very faraway from the ideal Sears-Haack body and this make a serious headaches in terms of the Jones supersonic arearule. For additional AIM-9Xs or ASRAAMs need your F-35 an extern rail. Then carry the F-35 B and C it canon in an external pod and not intern. This pod is stealth what disproves the claim that extern stores always unstealthy or only the F-35 can carry an extern pod without the degrade of stealth. Extern stores on the right place can somtimes used as shockbody, at supersonic means more one the right point sometimes less drag. Who think a F-35 is invisble for an IRST-QWIP-Sensor should think again. A QWIP-Sensor is able to detect CO2 (4,3μm) and a Jet-engine produce many CO2 and yes QWIP is avaible. An another point is the temperature in the stagnation point of the Mach cone[22], detectable by QWIP. Who think IRST can not deliver the range should think again, PIATE/IRST can passiv ranging. Or the new 4 color IR-detectors Multi-Color Infrared Alerting Sensor (MIRAS). The Austrian airforce claim Mach 2.35 for its Eurofighter, they carry only two IRIS-T. --HDP (talk) 10:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

So you're telling me that the Mig-31, a 4th generation fighter with a red-line of Mach 3.0 and conformal weapons stores which was restricted to Mach 2.83 to avoid burning its engines out is slower then the Mach 1.6 F-35? What is the 'combat configuration' of a Mig-31 according to Lockheed Martin then? And furthermore; how do many other 4th generation aircraft, capable of Mach 2+ lose close to 1,000km/p/h top speed to drag? I honestly don't think this statement has any place in the world of fact. But perhaps it could be included if stated specifically as an unsubstantiated claim by Lockheed Martin?--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Note the MiG-31 and its MiG-25 predecessor are interceptors, not fighters. That's enough here, since this is not helping to improve the article (WP:Talk page guidelines). -Fnlayson (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

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

I, think this would help [23] --HDP (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

^ Thanks. The article has images and text showing changes to features. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Awesome, thanks. anybody think this would be good to put on the article? - 160.209.114.211 (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please don't put links to the PAK-FA under the 'comparable aircraft' section. The F-35 has seen its first and small-scale production; the PAK-FA hasn't even been revealed yet nor had its maiden flight. No one even knows what it looks like, nonetheless the specifications of the aircraft itself. 71.229.69.68 (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

I recently spoke to a Canadian Forces Pilot who is a very close friend of mine. He recently took part in testing of the aircrafts electronics, in a simulated Aircraft. He told me that the aircraft (in simulation, and real life) uses ETOS to allow the pilot to "see through" the aircraft. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.254.168 (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

It does seem Kopp considered the effect of RAM. Also the statement above was unreferenced as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, forgot the reference: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01-Annex.html#mozTocId787784 00:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Mossig (talk)

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

The "See also" section follows the layout recommended by WP:AIR/PC. If you have disagreements with this, please take up the issue at WT:AIR/PC. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The link Royal Navy in the 21st century does not appear previously in this article. The similar Royal Navy link does. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I was looking at that. From what I could tell, other than the fact they were intending to deploy several of the aircraft into their service, I didn't really see the need for it to be a 'See also'. Worthy of mention in the body definitely, but in my experience, as well as the WP:AIR see also guideline I was just informed about, it said to keep it fairly tight. Things like History of F-35 and lists etc. Mkdw^talk 08:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking the time to jump in and help with cleaning-up the article. Fresh eyes are always helpful in spotting areas the regular editors may miss. And no, I don't seriously think you were stalking me. My sarcasm went a bit overboard! - BillCJ (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

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

From the website defpro: From a political perspective, America needs to start thinking about what alternatives it can offer the British as credible substitutes for the uncompetitive and technically troubled F-35. Is this serious stuff or just journalistic ridiculous rumor?89.245.225.208 (talk) 10:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is probably some core of truth. Remember that the USA involved partners in the project with (signed) promises of a high-tech multirole, stealth, superior, light weight, cheap fighter to enter service before 2010....... You can seriously wonder what part of that promise is lived up to; as it seems to become a high-tech multirole fighter with mediocre stealth capability (modern standards), limited superiority (see the discussion about baby seals further on), rather heavy and very expensive fighter that will not be able for large scale introduction in the next few years. If I were counting on this plane to replace my current fleet, I would consider alternatives.... Arnoutf (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'd do the same thing if I were buying the A400M, another troubled American product. ;) - BillCJ (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not American, but indeed I would Arnoutf (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't billed as air superiority, instead multi role light fighter. Huge difference....just to start...and A400M? LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.83.140 (talk) 06:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

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

Following on from this, today Volkskrant reports [25] that according to the US Goverment Accountability Office the project is likely to be delayed for another 1-3 years; and is likely to overspend yet another 2.4-7.4 billion US$. Fixed prices will not be agreed before 2013 (every party that signs a contract earlier apparently has to agree to increased prices after the contract has been signed). [26][27] Arnoutf (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Navy Times (also Army Times, Air Force Times) is a rag. If you want to cite GAO articles I suggest linking to the actual GAO reports which are available on their web site: GAO.gov. 98.98.218.38 (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

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

Have you looked through the article and checked the references there? -Fnlayson (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

One of the features of the X-35 that impressed me on the tv shows about the JSF competition was how the new fan system (while seemingly complicated) solved the problem that the Harrier had of ingesting its own exhaust resulting in loss of thrust. Yet I can't find any information about it in the competition article, the F-35 article, or the Harrier article. I also had difficulty finding mainstream articles regarding the issue. Am I remembering incorrectly? Is the problem known by another name? Thoughts? Thanks. 98.98.218.38 (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

That is touched on in the Design section under Engines. It says "cool exhaust" in there. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

This innovation was first seen on an aircraft manufactured by Yakolev. It has been 'theorised' that the Yakolev contracts with Lockheed Martin after the end of the Cold War were related to the F-35's VTOL engines.--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

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

What mission profile is this intended to reflect? Surely not interdiction?--124.184.92.15 (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

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

Sounds a lot like trivia to me. Anyway the quoted articles show it is not sure it will be in the movie at all. And (bad jokes follow) what do you mean big budget movie for 200 Million Dollars you can buy only about 1 single F35; If it is big budget anywatY I rahter hope they pay copyright to the F35 developers for use of their design; they could use a few billion Euro's to eliminate overspending in the program.... ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

While that may be funny, $200,000,000 a higher amount of money for a film budget, compared to other movies. Comparing it to the cost of a piece of military equipment isn't apples and apples. What you are doing would be like saying someone bought a $5,000 camera to take a picture of a new car, then saying car cost more, so it isn't a costly camera. The camera is costly for a camera. Mathewignash (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Adding that now would be violate WP:NOTCRYSTAL, since the movie has not been released. Also, the F-35 would need to have a major or notable role in the movie and reference(s) to support that (see WP:AIRPOP). -Fnlayson (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just to point out, Hasbro has announced Breakaway, so no one is predicting it, it exists. Mathewignash (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

But suggesting the F-35/Breakaway will have a non-minor role in the movie is... -Fnlayson (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't think anyone has suggested he will a have any particular size roll in the movie, I just said he's there in the movie line. Now I did just read the suggested section "Popular Culture" Wikproject Aircraft articles, and it does seem that only VERY MAJOR appearances should be mentioned under this policy. I don't really agree with that, but it is the current policy and I will of course abide by it. It will have to be enough that the page for Breakaway has the F-35 mentioned on it and a link. Thanks for the input on this subject. Mathewignash (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Not a huge, major role, but much more than a 1 time appearance. The F-22 and V-22 each have a Transformers entry in their articles, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thing is, did anyone count the number of lines Starscream had in the TF movie? Or his total screen time. It wasn't that much. Oh well.... We had a similar debate on the page for Ronald Reagan, because I wanted to mention the FICTIONAL appearances of President, what he had become in popular culture, and the people maintaining it didn't want to mix the reality of the person with fictional appearances. Eventually we started a second page devoted to Reagan the fictional character (meeting Captain America once, or when he gained supper powers in the New Universe comics), as opposed to the actual man. Instead of listing things like this in every page that has a Transformers link for instance, it might be a better thing to start a page or section for Transformers that lists their "real world" alternate modes together. This would keep fictional material from taking over articles on real world things. Mathewignash (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

There is a genuine dispute here, but it is not vandalism. Both sides need to refrain from such calls. THere are two competing view points here, and both need to be presented using reliable sources. Much of what has been added of late seems to be synthesis and conjecture from sources, but may not be born out by the sources themselves. The only design similarities between the Yak-41 and the F-35 is the aft vectoring nozzle design, which is only used on the F-35B VSTOL variant. This does not make the two aircraft types related. Denying that Yak developed the F-35, or some part, does not make one a racist! Remember if the Soviets can design the Tu-144, the Buran, etc. without "borrowing" the desings from the West, the reverse should be true too. :) If nothing else, LM probably learned from Yak that using an afterburner in VTOL mode was not the best idea! - BillCJ (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I concur, in that one of the first things to do in a content dispute is to talk it out. I believe there is a legitimate case to be made by both editors but now that the Wp:BRD principle has been invoked, this is the forum that is to be employed. All parties should also be aware that the tenets of a talk page listed at the top of the page equally apply:

• Be polite
• Assume good faith
• Avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming

FWiW, please excuse the preachiness, I do know that Wiki editors of some standing already abide by these tenets. Bzuk (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC).Reply

I agree with pretty much all of what is said above. I'll also point out that a source repeatedly offered up by User:Ken keisel states no more than "Lockheed Martin also turned to Russia for technical expertise, purchasing design data from Yakovlev." Now in my book, buying some engineering numbers and technical specs is a far cry from a true "partnership," "joint venture" or whatever another user would like to contend (for whatever reason) took place between the two companies. And this source offers no additional detailed information on the subject. I realize we're supposed to WP:AGF at all times, but this particular line of editing has smelled of a personal agenda from the beginning and really has no notability beyond the brief mention that already covers the topic in this article. It certainly doesn't merit its own section. ViperNerd (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree with main points here. I think the X-35 would a be the better place for any detailed history on the Yakovlev connection, since the F-35 is the production derivative of it. The Development section is history/chronology stuff. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please note that this issue was discussed here at some length a while ago. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Mark! That discussion was before my time here on WP began (though I joined in the month you added the last comments.) - BillCJ (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, that wasn't very long after I joined myself a couple of months earlier — so don't go thinking you're any less of a wikifossil than I am! Askari Mark (Talk) 02:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

• No, I wasn't thinking you were a Wiki-fossil! Just that I hadn't seen the discussion. Interestingly, though I had been consulting WP for several months sporadically, I actually became serious about joining and contributing after seeing the F-35 article in late July 2006, when the USAF announced the name "Lightning II"! I think it was the FA that day. - BillCJ (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

• First, I'm afraid that I have to disagree with BillCJ that ViperNerd actions do not constitute vandalism. Ever since I posted information about Yakovlev's partnering with Lockheed-Martin on the F-22 article ViperNerd has been following me onto every article I have edited, including many that are totally unrelated to this matter, and has placed literally dozens of erroneous tags into these articles. In addition, he has placed a great deal of unsourced and highly speculative information into the articles as well (I'd like to see his explanation for his statement that the DeHaviland Mosquito was designed with "stealth" technology), while challenging sourced information that I have added. This pattern of following an editor around on Wikipedia articles is the equilivant of "spamming".

• Before I go any farther on this matter I would encourage everyone participating to look up the credentials for Bill Gunston and Yefim Gordon, since these are the two authors and researchers that I am citing, and ViperNerd has expressed some doubt as to their credibility. From what I see they are the two most extensively published experts on Cold War Soviet aircraft. I am asking for a consensus that ViperNerd is incorrect on this matter, and that they are very credible sources.
• As to the matter itself, the chronology as explained by Gunston and Gordon is as follows; With the fall of the Soviet Union in 1990, virtually all funding for military contracts evaporated. Some companies, like MiG and Tupolev, were well-positioned to survive this collapse as they had a considerable number of foreign operators for their aircraft who would continue to need service and upgrades. In addition, they would be needed to service a large number of their military aircraft still in Soviet service, even if no new aircraft were ordered. Yakovlev was perhaps the least well-positioned to survive this era, as they had very few foreign operators to support, and the main Yakovlev aircraft in Soviet military service was the Yak-38, which was being withdrawn, not upgraded.
• Yakovlev had effectively bet the company's future on two aircraft, the Yak-141 VTOL fighter that they had expected to replace the Yak-38 in Soviet naval service, and the Yak-130 advanced jet trainer. In a effort to survive, Gunston and Gordon state that in 1991 Yakovlev appealed to virtually every aircraft manufacturer in the world to team with them on these two aircraft. The first to respond was Aermacchi of Italy, who teamed with Yak on the Yak-130, and eventually produced the aircraft for the Italian Air Force. In late 1991 Yakovlev and Lockheed-Martin entered into talks over the Yak-141, and in early 1992 Lockheed-Martin provided between $385 and $400M to Yakovlev for a partnership on the Yak-141. According to Gunston and Gordon, on September 6 1992 Yakovlev announced at the SBAC display at Farnborough that they had partnered on the Yak-141 with an undisclosed western aerospace manufacturer and had received between $385 and $400M in funding. Lockheed-Martin did not publicly disclose the partnership until June 1994. Immediately afterward Lockheed-Martin engineers began working with the design team responsible for the Yak-141 and Yak-43, their focus being on Yakovelv's research into VTOL designs. I have no doubt that Lockheed-Martin knew Yakovlev had an extensive background in testing various VTOL systems, and considering that the joint Strike Fighter contract may prove to be the most lucrative military contract in history, the money and time saved learning from Yakovlev's successes and failures would have been money well-spent, particularly if it kept the information out of the hands of their rival, Boeing.
• As to just what nuts and bolts Yakovlev added to the F-35, or even if they just saved the F-35 from going down a dead end path, is something that is still classified, and I'm sure Lockheed-Martin will be in no hurry to disclose Yakovlev's contribution. In any case, $400M changed hands and the design team from Yakovlev assisted throughout the F-35's development.
• As for placing this information on the X-35 or F-35 page, While it is nice to have a separate page on the X-35, the aircraft are essentially the same. The X-35 was merely the prototype. Since Yakovlev's involvement is related to the design of both aircraft it should be added to both articles. Limiting it to the X-35 would be inappropriate, as the same development was carried through to the F-35, and it is in the F-35 that it is in operational use. It would also give the appearance of an attempt to suppress the information by not carrying it over into the article in the section on the development of the production aircraft.
• Finally, this is on Page 700 Jane's All The World's Aircraft 200-2001 relating to the F-35:

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

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

And I'll ask again on behalf of the group...exactly what SPECIFIC examples of Yakovlev's input into the design of the X-35/F-35 can you offer up from your single source? It still looks like you have nothing of substance to offer on this subject other than drawn inferences and pure speculation on what you THINK might have actually taken place in a highly-classified program based on an amount of money changing hands between two companies. Unless you can offer some concrete proof of Yakovlev's involvement beyond the sale of data concerning the Yak-141/Yak-43, the type of material you are trying to add to this article is NOT NOTABLE and does not belong in an encyclopedic article. Also, neither I nor anyone else has questioned the expertise or credibility of Mr. Gunston or Mr. Gordon, but as you have admitted, even they don't know exactly what the extent of the Lockheed/Yakovlev "partnership" was with regard to the finished product that is the F-35 Lightning II. It would seem from discussion thus far that consensus among the editors involved with this article is that your POV on this issue is not supported by facts, and as such I'd call for a removal of all but a brief mention of Lockheed's purchase of data from Yakovlev (I've never tried to remove ALL reference to this fact, despite Ken's claims). Anything beyond that is nothing but guesswork and hand-waving. Thanks to all who took the time to give their input. ViperNerd (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, Ken, but what you've outlined from Gunston and Gordon does not support what you've been adding to the article. The authors' credibility is not in question here. Drawing conclusions not supported in sources is called synthesis in WP terms. If the sources don't give details of the relationship between Lock and Yak, then WP cannot either. If there are no sources making an explicit connection between the Yak-43 and the X-35/F-35, and especially the F-22, then we cannot make such connections. We state what the sources actually say (in our own words, of course), and nothing else. Our opinions intepretations, and even educated reasonings cannot be included if they are not directly supported by the sources. We don't help a company or nation's credibiliyy by asserting things that cannot actually be proven. As to the X=35/F-35, the details of the Yak-141 "connection" should be covered in the X-35 article, with a brief summary here. There is no need to have duplicate info in 2 articles, especially since the X-35 article was split from this article so as to cover the development in greater detail, and thus allowing the the F-35 article to foucus of matters realted to actual production and service. - BillCJ (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

I agree with Bill. Your comments ([28]) are general discussion about the F-35 and Australia's motivation for participating in the program (eg, "The USA is putting us between a rock and a smelly place by interfering in our democratic system to steal our tax dollars") and have nothing to do with this article. As stated in WP:TALK "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article." Nick-D (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

(Edit conflist) This is not the article, but it's talk page. You've made no changes or addtions to the article that then I reverted. Most of your comments were not contructive to improving the article, but mostly sarcasm with an apparant axe to grind. I'm not certain the MiG-31 counts as a 4th gen fighter, being basically an upgraded MiG-25, but fighter generations are mostly a fabrication of Lockheed anyway! They are basically meaningless, but it makes the Indians feel superior to the Pakistanis (Tejas vs. JF-17, which is 15 years newer, but an older generation!). As to your claims of political bribery, Lockheed is quite famous for having done that in the past, notably with the F-104, but there were many convictions and resignations from those cases. Has there been any actual legal proof or convictions in the AUssie case? FInally, almost all modern combat aircraft have difficulty coming in on time or on budget. This is not unique to products sold by Americans to Australians, as I am sure you no doubt know. A400M and Tejas are jsut two well-know non-American examples, and even the vaunted Typhoon was several years late. I apologize for not taking your comments more seriously, but generous amounts of sarcasm will do that. I use sarcasm myself, but not as the bulk of my comments. - BillCJ (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I concur with Nick and Bill. Senor Freebie, I recommend you read WP:SOAP. An encyclopedia is supposed to have a neutral tone; it is not an exposé of solely negative points or an advertisement of positive fluff. When someone comes along and drops a laundry list of all one or the other – and without reliable sourcing – they can usually expect it to be reverted. (BTW, Bill, fighter generations are not a creation of Lockheed's; some ascribe them to Russian writings in the 1970s-80s, and others to Western sources in the 1960s.) Askari Mark (Talk) 02:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the clarification, Mark, but that was my sarcasm! LM may not have invented them, but they seem to get the most mileage out of it! And sorry for being a bit heavy on the F-104 bribery, but I'm a Grumman fan - Tomcats and Tigers forever! - BillCJ (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I edited out the one major piece of soapboxing I used in the discussion page; where I commented that the USA was putting Australia between a rock and a smelly place. This just isn't the place for that. Perhaps an article on the defence relationship between Australia and the USA would be a more appropriate location for a comment like that. However I do think that my points were all relevant and contributed to discussion. This page is not exclusively for people who edit the main article. I mostly contribute to 'discussions' because I have a good general knowledge of the information available in this field but I don't have enough time to go back through all my sources. So I instead contribute to discussions on what should be modified or fixed in the article. For example here I backed up the points made regarding the use of multiple engines for the same prototype aircraft. I mentioned that the Mig-31, being the fastest 4th generation fighter, most likely broke LM's claims for the F-35's speed. And I pointed out the political / business relationship between the current Australian government and their contractor. These are all valid contributions to the discussion here and perhaps because BillCJ was offended by one of them or because my wording was no to his liking he reverted all of them and presumed he had the right to 'edit war' to silence me.

Also, the mere fact that every one of my comments added to the discussion ... yet I didn't soap box in the article itself means I was justified in making my comments and Bill was not justified in deleting them.

And a side note; Bill, I suggest you re-research the Mig-31 after the point you made. The airframe design and engines have less in common then the F/A-18A has with the F/A-18E, which are both completely different aircraft who use the same name. Also, component wise the Mig-31 could be considered a 3.5th generation aircraft when introduced into service but a 4.5th generation aircraft after upgrades ... so my point stands. Besides, I doubt VERY much that the F-35 could outpace many other 4th generation aircraft such as the F-14, F-15, Mig-29 or Su-27, most of which redline around 1,000km/p/h quicker.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps I’ve missed it, but I don’t see anywhere in this article mention of a Lockheed Martin claim that “the F-35 is faster then all 4th generation fighters in a combat configuration”. It might be true … in the case where the F-35’s combat load is entirely internal (effectively “clean”) and its competitors is (by necessity) external; stores, tanks, pods and pylons are typically draggy. In any case, to confirm or refute this, we’d have to have a reliable source that has “run the numbers”; for us to do so would be ”original research”, which is verboten on Wikipedia. Calling a MiG-31 a “Generation 3.5” aircraft design would be even more egregious original research, since there is no such term in general use.

As for Bill’s reverting you, that’s not unfair (particularly for unsourced material). The general procedure that Wikipedia prefers be followed in content disputes is Bold-Revert-Discuss (not to forget Assume Good Faith). You were bold, he reverted, and we’re here discussing. Since sarcasm tends to singe more often than it enlightens, how about both you and Bill leave off with it and let’s all just be collegial from here on. Good enough? Askari Mark (Talk) 04:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The F-35 speed remark was from a discussion of a source that was being removed because of weasel statements. The source was Lockheed Martin's site. I apologise for the sarcasm ... it was out of place ... but I was not the first offender which made me assume that Bill removed my comments (note all my comments, not just the ones with sarcasm) because he disagreed with my comments and didn't want them to be part of the discussion. I'm not really advocating original research either.--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay, fair enough. Let's go forward. So what exactly is it that you do want add? Askari Mark (Talk) 20:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The "Incorrect or weasel statements in a link" section above is about a performance comparison in a LM article. That was not mentioned in this wikipedia article. Time to move onto stuff that improves this article... -Fnlayson (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

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

To calculate the F-35's maximum speed Mach-Numbers with the first value is wrong because the F-35 will achieve this speed only a altitude and not at sea-level, otherwise she would be the fastest conventional aircraft at sea-level, even faster than a Tornado, which can reach Mach 1.3 at sea-level.--85.179.96.58 (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

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

Let's be consistent here please. It appears that many users, including myself, have attempted to improve this section only to have our efforts be met with claims of "cruft". Aside from the insulting arrogance conveyed by providing the aloof justification of "cruft", how does one label a thing as "popular" to "culture" (and to whose)? In this case, I had taken the time to add a blurb about the F-35's even more prior and prominent appearance in EA's Battlefield 2 title, that, contrary to the process I seek here, was deleted without consensus. Considering the fact that it is a well-known title with over 2 million copies sold ^[1], it seems likely to resonate with the typical Wikipedian (and if not, how could any justification be given then for an obnoxious flop of a movie?). I motion either all credible and well-written sources of popular culture be included, or none at all. As it stands now, subjective appraisals of "popularity" by a user toting justifications such as "cruft" is not very encyclopedic. 141.117.232.166 (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Before I answer your specifics, it would help to know when you added this info, and when it was removed, as I can find no edits by your IP for the past 3 weeks at least. IP addresses can change, so if you made these edits under another IP, it would be helpful to know that up front, without having to guess. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Here's the revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=F-35_Lightning_II&oldid=289641736 141.117.232.166 (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The entry there is uncited. The link in your reference listed above is not working for me now. However this article has the same title, but does not mention game sales. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please note this is an article about a real aircraft not computer games, the entry would be removed as not notable to the aircraft. The fact that it is a high selling game has nothing to do with the aircraft. It is not subjective - popular Culture items of notable appearances in media of real aircraft would be judged on their merits. Anything else related to simulations, artifacts, games, fantasy etc are not notable to the real aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Also note the current entry on Live Free or Die Hard doesnt meet this criteria either! MilborneOne (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am in full agreement, the policy should apply equally. In favor for removing or adding all non-military or non-aviation related information. 141.117.232.166 (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The WP:Aircraft project's policy currently does not mention real or non-real aircraft, except for speculation about look-a-likes to prevent original research. WP:MILHIST's policy on pop culture is similar but more general. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

In light of the above, the section has been removed (commented out) -Original Poster of Topic (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

You need to get a consensus to remove it. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I thought that's what this was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.117.232.167 (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

• There's been no suggestion to remove the Live Hard entry and consensus agreement to remove. The current consensus for keeping the entry is at Talk:F-35 Lightning II/Archive 3#Popular_culture_or_not?. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

my suggestion was implicit (read above): either keep all popular culture references or remove them all. The article you linked states that consensuses change, so referring to an old consensus is not progressing this one. -Original Poster of Topic (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply