Jump to content

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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

the "analysis" section

is POV and original research. It does not belong in any encyclopedia. It's good, but not encyclopedic information.

--Yes, especially the ALIS section needs editing. It has ridiculously POV and incoherent information.

I rode in the F-35, it was fun.

history

The History in this article... isn't. There is no mention of the JAST program that lead to the JSF.

sugarfish 00:15, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You seem well informed. I suggest you edit the article -- Cabalamat 01:26, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Done. sugarfish 04:13, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Shots in slightly different angle.

X35
X35
X35
X35
X35
awesome. Looks like the new Udvar-Hazy (damn the spelling) addition. I'm dying to spend a few days there sometime. mnemonic 08:28, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

WikiProject Aircraft

shouldn't this article conform to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft? mnemonic 08:25, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)


Australian JSF vs. F/A-22

I reverted the commentary on American unwillingness to sell the F/A-22 to Australia because it doesn't fit with reports on the issue. In Houston's speech justifying the JSF purchase, nowhere does he say that the US wouldn't sell Raptors to us if we were prepared to fork out the cash. Greg Sheridan has also said in The Australian (can't stand the bloke, but he seems to be reasonably well-briefed on such things) that the US Government has said we can have Raptors if we are prepared to fork out for them. Historically, the Americans have been perfectly willing to sell their hot hardware to us.

So why would they not be prepared to sell us the Raptor but not the full-whack JSF? The argument is somewhat more subtle than what appeared in the previous edit. The JSF is going to be fairly widely exported, to countries that are less trusted than Australia to not pass the technology on to competitors with their own aircraft industry. However, it will be rather politically difficult for the US to allow some partners in the project better aircraft than others. With the Raptor, nobody else is asking for them (amongst other reasons, nobody else can afford the damn things) so the US wouldn't be offending anybody by selling them to Australia. --Robert Merkel 04:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The official F-22 site (www.f22-raptor.com) once stated that the aircraft would not be available for international export. Also, many have placed Israel at the top of the list of potential foreign customers (considering its past purchases of F-15s, F-16s and its high defense expenditures).
195.70.32.136 10:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Uncited, unproved and POV. Cite some sources, change your tone, and I'll listen. That goes for the unsigned comment and the IP adress. --The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 17:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

SEAD

Will it be capable of SEAD missions? Jigen III 08:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It had better be; most of the foriegn partners won't have anything else to do the job (nor will the UK when they're operating off their carriers... --Robert Merkel 09:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

International partners

Nowhere in any official documentation is the United States referred to as a "Level I" participant and the other countries as levels II through IV. Always they are referred to as international partners with the UK as the sole level I partner and the others at levels II and III. While it's not strictly inacurate to place the US at the top and renumber the rest down one, this is not the way it is referred to by international governments or even in US government documents. I have therefore changed this section to reflect the official nomenclature.

--Reply--I apologize for being a newbie, I'm unsure how to reply in "discussion" pages. I quickly perused this International Partners section and I was left unclear as to the role of the US. Noting that the UK is the sole level I partner said to me that they were the leader, and the others were lesser contributors. The problem is, I didn't see where the US's role was delineated (including what financial investment it had made). I apologize if I am unclear and missed something obvious.

F/A-35

Shouldn't they designate it F/A rather than just F? It'll do ground attacks like the F/A-22 and F/A-18. And the USMC version will be in the close air support role, so an A will make sense.

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

The F/A-22 designation has apparently reverted to plain F-22, and the only reasons the F/A-18 is still called that is bureaucratic inertia (it's been called that since the late 70's) and to differentiate it from the non attack capable Swiss and Finnish Hornets. Still, I think the designation *should* be changed - to F-24, which is the next designation in the proper Tri-service Designation System. (Still, it's not the first time we get a goof like this due to some politician/aide who couldn't spell right - IIRC, the SR-71 was supposed to have been called RS-71...) --SebastianP 09:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The Royal Navy and the Carrier Variant

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

Variant Conversion?

With 80% commonality, would it be possible to, say, convert an A-variant to a B- or C-variant? Jigen III 13:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This is impossible to say at the current time. Whilst on a technical level I cannot see why it wouldn't be possible, I can see no reason why there would be a need to convert between variants. Its highly unlikely therefore that the mechanisms and devices to convert between variants will ever be made.

Featured Article Candidate

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

Non-vehicle differentiator?

This section contains a lot of techno-babble. I am not an engineer, but it makes absolutely no sense. I presume it was copied from a press-release. Before even considering this as a featured article, can an expert in this field clear up what is meant by that in plain english? It seems to have something to do with keeping maintenance down by using mass-produced components..

Error in engine thrust figures

The article refers to two engine types, a standard and a "High Performance", but the lbf given for the high-spec engine is less than standard, but the SI units show a higher thrust.

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

FAC failure, any ideas to improve it?

The FAC has failed, in spite of everything that was pointed out as a problem being fixed. I will still attempt to improve this article, any ideas on how to? --The1exile 16:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You could include inline ciations, I suppose. Also, some of the pictures do not have sources, which is a breeding ground for objections. I wish I had seen this on the FAC page, I would have voted for it. Sorry. TomStar81 23:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought the writing was very good, enjoyable to read. Some ideas:
  • The format/layout/arrangement was a little confusing to me at first, I see some of it came from Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content. Maybe could use a little polishing, especially near the end, and tweaked to fit the subject. I'll try to work on the reference section.
  • Statements like this need references: Reportedly, export versions for some countries other than the UK may be subject to some restrictions and carry different mission systems. What equipment would be changed, and the difference in capabilities is not known.
  • There were a bunch of spelling errors (according to SpellBound) and a mixture of American and British English (I fixed some of this).
  • OK, the end formatting could look more like Convair B-36 which is a featured article.
  • Could use a media section, there is probably some good PD video from the mil sites. Sullevon 00:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I will see if I can fix these problems then. Citation, sourcing and references can be done, and spelling can probably be fixed (when both British and American editors contribute this is a common problem). However, videos I cannot help with, I can't get this PC to access them. --The1exile 12:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the spelling needs to be standardized on American English, since its mostly an American topic. Not sure about this though.
  • I've found some video but need to convert it to the Ogg format. Anyone know how to do this? --Sullevon 23:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: rewrite the Design section and move up to after program history. Currently has good info on different manufacturers. Should be some writing on the planes unique design in the design section, along with some more images. --Sullevon 00:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Sullevon, thanks for the suggestions, and I can't help you with video conversions. But moving the design section is a problem, as then it is not in accordance with WP:AIR, and that was a problem when I voted this article for FA status (see the subpage). And if you want to change the spelling to merican English, then do so, but I use and contribute in British English and have dictionaries for British English, not American English. --The1exile 16:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I've moved the design section back to where it started. --Sullevon 17:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added a media section with video, if anyone else has video they want converted, let me know. Sullevon 17:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

GA Status

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

International participation POV

This entire section paints a gloomy picture of dissatisfied partners with the US. For example,

The CEO of BAE Systems, the British contractor on the plane, has complained that the US has not given the UK (and his company) access to the crucial source code of the plane's software, thus making it impossible for the UK to maintain and modify the JSF independently.

This statement needs context. Did the UK and BAE secure access for the source code prior to entering the project? Or are they just whining after the fact and trying to change the terms they already agreed to? Full picture needed.

Likewise, other partners complaining that they aren't getting enough manufacturing work from the project; what was their agreed share? Does their (lack of) technically capability have anything to do with bid awards?--Sullevon 18:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I added a reference and a paragraph. Apparently the UK expects the US congress to grant a waiver for technology transfer to the UK, yet they won't tighten up their own laws on transferring that technology to third countries, among other concerns.
Also, The last paragraph regarding various countries unhappy with the bid awards; should include statements by countries, like Turkey, that have indicated their happiness with the awards so far. (I'll try to find a reference for this)--Sullevon 19:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

Now that this article is starting to look a lot better, I have put it up for peer review because a member of WP:Air suggested it. --The1exile 16:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Should we be putting our comments here or at PR or both? Some things I've intended to do but not sure when I'll have time:
  • Expand design section. Add rendering of VTOL system if I can find one. Unique manufacturing and design features?
  • Some of the reference links are now dead, replacement references or links need to be found for numbers 2 and 5.
  • Find recent information about the direct energy weapons that were supposed to be nearly operational several years ago. Current references are a couple of years old.
  • What is current production status? I think the first planes are moving through the assembly line now, but it wasn't clear from the jsf website if these are just part of the development cycle prior to rampup.
  • Scheduled service: I added a paragraph in the intro about when the plane is to enter service, but it lacks information for UK, Aus. etc... --Sullevon 19:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where you should put comments; I have never had experience with PR's before. Having a PR mainly serves to make more people notice this article. Put them here for now; if a discussion at PR starts then perhaps suggestions should also be posted there. --The1exile 19:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ready to submit to FAC again? Will that first image prevent it getting through? --PopUpPirate 22:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Which version(s) for the RAF?

The information on the version(s) that will be used by the RAF is not consistent in the current text, as illustrated by the quotes below:

"Three JSF variants are envisioned: the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) F-35A for the U.S. Air Force (USAF) and the RAF; the Advanced Short Take-Off Vertical Landing (ASTOVL) F-35B for the US Marine Corps (USMC) and the Royal Navy (RN); and the carrier-based (CV) F-35C for the U.S. Navy (USN). The USAF is considering the F-35B. The Royal Navy is considering ordering the F-35C variant for its large CVF Future Carrier program."

"The STOVL variant had been viewed as the most likely victim of cost-cutting measures; however a USAF "commitment" seems to guarantee the aircraft that the USMC, RN, and RAF need."

"Even the UK, which has no CTOL JSF requirement, (...)" Buxtehude 02:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Specifications section is screwed up

Wing area: 35 ft 0 in (10.65 m).

Someone familiar with Template:Airtemp might want to fix this (I'm too dumb to decifer the template). --Duk 22:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Reference order

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

Fixed. --PopUpPirate 11:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


March 8 2006: section removed

I have removed the following section:

This dominance can only have been achieved by Lockheed's method of STOVL flight; in fact, the decision is said to have clinched the contract.
The construction contract, System Development and Demonstration (SDD), was awarded on 26 October, 2001 to the Lockheed Martin X-35, beating the Boeing X-32. The first planes are expected to enter service in 2008. Announcing the decision, DoD officials and the UK Minister of Defence Procurement said that while both aircraft met or exceeded requirements, the X-35 outperformed the Boeing aircraft consistently.
However, in retrospect, the claim the the X-35 "outperformed the Boeing aircraft consistently" may not have been fully accurate, and perhaps the claim is a little telling. It is not unreasonable to contribute the reason for the X-35's selection to the fact that the DoD did not want an airplane monopoly (just two primes by the 1990's). If the Boeing design had won, then the DoD would only have one fighter airframe maker (Lockheed might have been out of that business line if they lost JSF). Selecting to avoid a monopoly is a long standing, though typically "unvoiced" criteria. (Boeing makes, or significantly contributes to the F-18, F-15 and F-22 airframes). Fighter engine selections in the 1960-70's are a case in point; at the time of the DoD announcement the selected turbojet was hailed as superior - years later it would be quitely made known that the prevention of a monopoly was actually the overriding criteria.
Typically features unique to the favored non-monopoly concept is then touted as the reason for it's selection, though ironically in the X-35's case, it was at the time its highly complex Remote Shaft-Driven Lift Fan. (Throughout the competition the fan was failure prone and actually did fail on at least one occasion during the fly-off period).
The Boeing entry met all specifications and would have been less costly to manufacture (the current problem with the X-35). The initial goal of the JSF program, the procurement of a low-cost-of-manufacture single engine fighter to replace the aging F-16, may have in fact been achieved by the X-32 design team; it is not unreasonable to attribute its "non-select" to the other, unvoiced factor. Years later, once the X-35's cost-of-manufacture and weight problems became intractable, US Navy and European government personnel began to express interest in dropping out of the JSF program, landing a real blow to the concept of a "Joint" Strike Fighter.

Reasons

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

Which currency?

The biggest international partner, the United Kingdom, has invested two billion in development funding for the project.

I assume that figure is in US dollars - could someone who knows for sure please make it explicit if so? Loganberry (Talk) 00:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where it says this, but the figure is mentioned in the first paragraph in the table of contents mentions "a little under $2 billion" as the British investment. --The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 17:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It says it in the second paragraph of the "International participation" section. Loganberry (Talk) 01:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


Su-47?

How is this aircraft related to the Su-47? I see little to no similarity. One has forward swept wings and the other does not, and one was designed exclusively for air superiority and the other was not. Unless someone can explain this to me I will remove the reference. LWF 03:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not about physical similarity, but that they are aircraft of a similar generation and generally similar mission. Everybody's multimission now and there's no fine grain of distinction between air superiority and strike fighters. It's more useful to relate the (few) fighters of a similar generation than to separate them. As the article Su-47 states, it's designed to compete with the F-22 and F-35. I agree it's more similar to the F-22, but nonetheless they are competing fifth generation designs. In the same vein the F-35 was not designed exclusively for air superiority and the F-22 was, but they are still similar aircraft by virtue of having largely overlapping missions in the same timeframe. --Mmx1 03:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The F-35 is a very real aircraft which is going to production - the Su-47 was a concept design for Sukhoi to test out some new ideas and see how forward-swept wings fared. It is in no way going to a production line. You can't compare them. Joffeloff 19:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so up on the Russian prototypes. I didn't know it was just a concept. Go ahead and nuke it then. --Mmx1 19:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed it - it's really not related at all since it is designed to be a highly agile dogfighter without any 'stealth'-inducing shaping to the fuselage. It's more comparable to the F-22 or better yet, the Eurofighter. But even then, it's still a one-off. Joffeloff 20:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I removed Su-47 a while ago. I wonder who put it back in. LWF 20:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The resident Russian fighter cheering section. --Mmx1 21:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

A-10 replacement?

I reinstated the A-10 replacement phrase. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've looked everywhere and can't find any authoritative corroboration of the F-35 NOT replacing the A-10. OTOH, there are many apparently credible recent statements saying the Air Force plans to replace the A-10 with the F-35:

Let me know if I'm wrong, and if there is some credible basis for saying the A-10 will never be replaced by the F-35. Joema 12:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not "credible" in that it's probably not citable here, but I get the distinct impression that a lot of US armed forces people, particularly the Army, don't think that replacing the A-10 with the JSF makes sense. this is typical. It may be just bar-room drivel from wannabees, but you see it around quite a lot. --Robert Merkel 13:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
No, the F-35 will not be replacing the A-10 in the sense that it will be loitering on the battlefield lighting up tanks with its big cannon. That's what most ground guys are skeptical about. What it's come down to is that the air force doesn't anticipate the A-10 being survivable against any sort of modern air defense. Even in Iraq, it had trouble against optically guided guns. The F-35 will perform CAS the way Marine Hornets are - zoom in, drop bombs, zoom out. For loitering CAS we have helos that can at least use cover and concealment. The A-10 will be eventually retired and the F-35 will be taking over the CAS mission; it'll just handle it in a different manner. --Mmx1 14:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The above references don't say the F-35 will be replacing the A-10 by flying the same profile and using a similar weapon. They just mean the F-35 will replace the A-10 from an inventory and overall CAS mission standpoint. That's what they mean by "replace", and this article using that term seems consistent. I've seen a lot of Usenet and forum banter about the F-35 being able/unable to replace the A-10, but that's no basis for an encyclopedia article. Joema 17:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The speculation comes from that misimpression. There is such a prevalent mythos surrounding the A-10 and its cannon that it's hard to imagine any aircraft replacing it on a 1-1 basis, particularly with a different mission profile. When people hear that the JSF will replace the A-10, they imagine this little fighter scooting along, strafing tank formations, an image that doesn't betray confidence. The survivability of the A-10 is admirable, but in the end a shot up A-10 and a shot-down A-10 are both out of the fight. --Mmx1 18:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, the A-10 does have one HUGE cannon, that no other plane caries if I remember correctly. 5 rounds will apparently take out any tank (4 HE and 1 DU), and it's legendary survivability are what makes it used rather than choppers, I read an article about the failings of the Apache chopper that meant that A-10s have to be used instead.--The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 22:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Mmx1 is exactly right: the F-35 won't fly an A-10 profile but can still replace it. The A-10 is survivable because it must be: it flies low and slow. In the era before modern navigation and targeting, it made sense. But in the near future, an F-35 (or an A-10 for that matter) will be able to drop a Small Diameter Bomb that is precision guided without using a seeker: [1]. Previously the problems with GPS munitions were (1) not totally precise, and (2) not usable against moving targets. Both of those are being addressed: [2], [3]. Once you have those capabilities you don't need a low-and-slow CAS plane that identifies targets by the Mk 1 eyeball.
But all of this is just discussion, which has no credibility in an encyclopedia article. If the current Air Force and DoD statements say the F-35 will replace the A-10, then that's what we write. We're not investigative reporters looking for a scoop. We accept the official statement and that goes in the encyclopedia. It doesn't mean we're dumb or gullible, but we're working for Wikipedia, not 60 Minutes. Joema 00:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The A-10 is being upgraded to a variant that will allow it to stay in service till 2028, so I dont think the F-35 going to completely replace it. Crazyheron 11:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Major issues

This article has some major issues, including a long section of speculation ("Possible reduction to two primary variants") and several sections of jargon-laden potentially OR material ("Analysis of JSF program"). It also could stand to have its material reorganized and cleaned up, but those are the two biggest issues that need the most work. If they're not addressed, I'm going to put in for FA status removal because this article does not feel like wikipedia's best work. Night Gyr 04:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed the reduction section (the most likely subject for reduction has been the B version anyway, though I won't write anything until I have citable sources). The source for the A cancellation was speculation from some thinktank, six months ago, that's yet to materialize. I'll work on the analysis too. --Mmx1 04:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Q&A session in norwegian newspaper

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

Name

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is a temporary name. The official name will be given to the F-35 before the end of July. When the name has gone public, the name of this article and all the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters must be changed to the official name.

May 18, 2006 (by Jeff Hollenbeck) - Wild speculation still surrounds the official name to be given to the world's newest stealth fighter jet, but not for long. While the options are still closely guarded secrets, the F-35 should have it's official name by the end of June 2006.

--- Src: 1

Name competition for the F-35 JSF

The F-35 is scheduled to be rolled out in 2006, at which time the name of the aircraft will be announced. The name will be chosen from among the suggestions submitted by the participating countries. Aerospace Engineering's involvement in the F-35 development means that staff are invited to participate in this competition. The winning Dutch submission will be rewarded with a special JSF VIP invitation to the Royal Netherlands Air Force Open Days. Do not forget to explain why your name is the best. State your name, address and telephone number clearly in order to be eligible for the prize.

--- Src: 2

SidewinderXP2 16:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Since it has been named, where is the source? Someone please cite this in the article!--TrevelyanL85A2 00:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


Predecessors

Since when has the F-35 been scheduled to replace any F/A-18 Hornet? Says so in the opening section, but at least the Navy is keeping the Super Hornet alongside the F-35C. Are the USMC going to operate just the F-35 in the future and ditch their Hornets?

F/A-18_Hornet and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet are two different aircrafts, I don't know if that answers your question? --145.94.41.95 11:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The original F/A-18 Hornet first flew in 1978. The F/A-18E/F first flew in 1995, and I think is still in production. So some F-18 models are about 30 years older than the newest ones. Therefore it's likely the oldest ones would be replaced first by the F-35, and the newer ones replaced much later. Joema 13:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II/Archive_1&oldid=370723230"