Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Separate section on "Difficulties and Concerns" or similar please?

Putting a (for the time being fairly messy, but hey so's my bedroom) subsection on concerns in the section about design makes little sense to me, especially for an aircraft that has been so contentious.

Alternatively it could be removed to the JSF programme article. Princeofdelft (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom to change variant?

Just a heads up but yesterday the news site, thisislondon.co.uk, have stated that the UK is going to change the STOVL variant, the F-35B for the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers to a "jets that take off and land by using a catapult and wire". Seems this will be the F-35C Carrier variant. Here is the page: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23886028-david-cameron-rules-out-slash-and-burn-defence-cuts.do -SuperDan89 (talk) 05:43, 09 October 2010 (UTC)

The latest rumors are that they'll skip JSF all together (in a huff that the limey engine wasn't taken) and weld tailhooks on Eurofighters so these can rust out over a few years at sea and allow a disgraceful exit from having military power that those bloody Yanks can call on the next time they go loony. Or something like that. Hcobb (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That's actually quite an old idea, and it's been atroung long enough for the mkanufactuere to have a proper carrier-capable and marinized proposal, though it's probably not a cheap one. Have you actually seen it such rumors since the above report was made, or is this another of your poor attempts to be funny? :) If so, it's probably better not said, as this isn't a forum. - BilCat (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No its been reported in the better British newspapers. Seems the state of the British economy the price of a F35B (100 million) and the surplus (and have to buy anyway or pay the penalties) Eurofighters are making teh top brass and politicos look again at this option. Jim Sweeney (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I know this is not a forum but the F35C always looked more attractive when they started talking about cutting down the order. It started at 150 dropped to 138 and now there reporting less than 50. If we can only afford 50 better the cheaper more capable model. Jim Sweeney (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Some links would be good if we want to consider adding the Naval Typhoon option too, though I doubt serious sources exist for the "rust" comment! I still can't see the Naval Typhoon being a cheap option, not if the goal is cutting overall costs. We were hearing rumors of Hornets/Super Hornets a few weeks ago, and these seem better options financially than the F-35C or Typhoon, especially since they are already in service from carriers. - BilCat (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to mention that I'm a little disappointed by talk of a "Limey engine" and "being in a huff", it just invites a pissing contest about what country has most often taken the football home in a fit of pique about something. Britain has often neglected its national industry and national interest in favour of American hardware in my view, so this criticism is unjustified and misplaced at least in these terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princeofdelft (talk • contribs) 04:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There was confirmed - at least in a nudge and a wink sort of way - by secuirty minister on todays Daily Politics. Could link to that on Iplayer but as far as i know can only be watched in the uk. Is this aceptable for a wikipedia source? Stupidstudent (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

certainly been confirmed now judgeing by the prime ministers statement, just minuets ago. Whats the best way to include this? On a side note will this mean the Queen Elizabeth carrier will be redisgned by an angled flight deck? Stupidstudent (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It's still not clear exaclty what they are going to do, but specifics should be forthcoming in the next few weeks. Also, the design is has an angled deck, What is being prosed is adding arresting gear and catapults, both of which the design already allows for. This was called "futre-proofing", and evidently was a good idea. - BilCat (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Prime Minister has confirmed it today, the F-35C will be used, not the STOVL -SuperDan89 (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what they "intend" to do, per the FlightGlobal source's wording. There are other options, such as the F-18 and Naval Typhoon, both of which have lobbyists who may try to get the decision changed to their proposed solution. As an aside, I have a feeling DOD/USN will soon start making noise about buying the F-35C instead of the F-35B for the USMC, as this will reduce the F-35 variants to 2, and save costs, as the F-35B is still having development divfficulties. - BilCat (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It going to be interesting to see if they do proceed with the more expensive less capable F35B now that they are the only buyers.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The F-35B isn't "less-capable", but "differently-cabable", as STOVL is a definite "capability" that the F-35C does not have, though at the price of range and stores. STOVL is a defnite advantage for the USMC, as F-35Cs won't be able to operate from LHAs/LHDs or semi-prepared forward bases, an added advantage with the Harrier now, especially in terms of availibilty and shorter times to targets. - BilCat (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, the Spanish and Italian Navies were also counting on the F-35B to replace their Harriers, so they are also "customers", though only for limited numbers. Congress usually doesn't take other nation's needs into consideration however, so hanging them out to dry without Harrier replacements probably won't matter much, since Italians and Spaniards don't have US Congressional representation. - BilCat (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a ref on loitering? Nothing's quicker than an aircraft that is already overhead and the F-35C has the lowest wing-borne stall speed and the most fuel. BTW Here she comes, she's USS America (LHA-6) is showing the trade offs between the F-35B and the EFV. (Extremely Fnorded Vehicle.) Hcobb (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Fnorded?? Is that a joke, or a typo, but of what I don't know! Also, "loitering" isn't a new concept, and has always been an option with the fast attack jests such as the A-6. F-4, et al. But the USMC likes to used smaller attack jets such as the A-4 and AV-8, as they can be forward-based where the bigger jets can't. In addition, the LHA/LHDs can be in locations where the carriers arn't deplyed, simply by virtue if numbers. It's darn certain the US isn't going to have (read "pay for") more the 10 CVNS in the near future. - BilCat (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A negative reference to the "Harriers are forward based" myth: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1988/DFS.htm (Pre-Gulf War of course.) Since then the record has been more mixed: http://books.google.com/books?id=4V1H7ZHn5s8C&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=harrier+forward+operating+base&source=bl&ots=Ced74rwd1f&sig=PSkx_dgfYfPxe6Qib7ZMiCZG0j4&hl=en&ei=R-i9TL_kMcK88gbTxOn6Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=harrier forward operating base&f=false Hcobb (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What is "Extremely Fnorded Vehicle" supposed to mean? Your allusions are so obscure at times that I need Dennis Miller to interpret them! :) Anyway. even assuming the FOB strategy isn't valid, that doesn't address the fact that with the LHA/LHDs, the USN effectively has several extra carriers to work with, and that CATOBAR aircraft cannot prerate from them, or the Italian/Spanish Navies' CVSs. What will probably happen though is that the USMC will have to buy more attack helicopters, and that may spur development of the X2- and X3-type high speed attack heliciopters to partially fill the gap left by the lack of STOVL capability in the USMC. But we digress too much into forum territory now. - BilCat (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Aren't we all waiting for the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle cancellation notice that's due this week? No EFV, no F-35B, no MV-22... means no USMC of course. Hcobb (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Folks, read the policy at the top of the page: This page is for discussing improvements to the article. It is not a forum. Mark83 (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Top speed

Simply comparing it to the Superhornet page shows that there is a major issue. The F/A-18 E/F has a higher mach number but lower mph and kph. Please clarify why the changes were reverted. -Nem1yan (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to calculate all top speeds at the same altitude, the current system would require users to calculate true speed themselves if they wanted to compare aircraft. -Nem1yan (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Top speeds are generally are calculated for "at altitude", which is above 35,000ft, and that is what most sources give, and what we generally report. However, if the sources cite a different altitude, then that is what we should report, as the top speed on new aircraft may not be known/released as yet. Finally, some of our users haven't finished the 8th grade yet, so they haven't come to the part of their Physical Science course that tells them that the speed of sound varies with altitude, hence the need to verify sources continually to make sure the figures are correct. Welcome to Open Editing! - BilCat (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

As I read it, the source given for the maximum speed does not state it's at 15,000 ft. It states: "The exact performance of the current F-35A configuration—also known as the 240-4—are classified. But a similar earlier standard (240-3) was credited with a maximum speed of Mach 1.67; acceleration from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft. in 61 sec.; a top turning speed of 370 kt. at 9g and 15,000 ft.; and a sustained turn capability of 4.95g at Mach 0.8 and 15,000 ft." Therefore, we should assume the max speed is "at altitude" (35,000 ft. and up). - BilCat (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the calculator on nasa.gov the only altitude where mach 1.67 is equal to approx 1200 mph is around 15,000ft. It is very possible that Lockheed is simply understating the capabilities of it's fighter (since the F-22's top speed was quoted as being Mach 2 for an extended period of time. -Nem1yan (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't see a mention of 1200 mph in the given source I quoted above, so where are you getting that from? What am I missing? - BilCat (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Its ref 63 on the article (i'm not sure how to link to it). -Nem1yan (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I found it. Since the source doesn't specify altitude, and the Mach/mph conversion doens't work out, we should state unspecified altitude. It's probably better to just use the Mach 1.6+ source, rather than the Mach 1.67, though it could be footnoted, as we need to be careful of mixing sources and conversions, and then making assumptions about altitude based on the discrepancies. - BilCat (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The ref clearly says Mach=1.67 and doesn't specify an altitude. I have removed the disputed numbers and left the M=1.67 there. If anyone can find a better ref that specifies speed at X altitude then it can go back in. - Ahunt (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

We should use the source that is directly from the jsf.mil site. Mach 1.6+ ~1200 mph. Still according to this the only altitude where that mach equals that speed is below 5000ft... which just seems wrong. Like I said before, this is probably just due to understatements on performance, but until a better source comes around the JSF.mil source seems like the best option. -Nem1yan (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed, speeds seem to be approx. sea level values for Mach 1.6. We need another source. -fnlayson (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the fact that people reading this are in the eighth grade leads to the conclusion that clear notes should be included that "Mach number" is strictly not a measure of speed but of flow-similarity, which they can then go and read about if they like.

Figures on the fastest the aeroplane can get from A to B should always be included in km/h M/h knots or somesuch, because those are actual measurements of speed. While its absolutely ideal to say at what altitude that is, because obviously that's still relevant even in an isothermal atmosphere, but leaving it out would simply imply that at some altitude, this speed is possible.

Equivalent Mach number could then be included (assuming standard atmosphere of course, strictly and factually that needs to be mentioned as well) and then as a cherry on top, someone could even see whether a "maximum allowable" Mach could be looked up. After all it's not like speed in a dive doesn't count in comparison, someone comparing might like to know whether or not a JSF could pursue another aircraft over which it has an altitude advantage for example. :)

The assumption that top speeds with no additional information are at tropopause altitudes, temperatures etc is very sound though, in my view too. Princeofdelft (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There might be two limits on the aircraft speed. A mach number where the shockwaves interfere with the control surfaces and also a top speed that might cause stress or heating issues. The aircraft might be required to keep under both limits, as they change in relationship with altitude. Hcobb (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That is rather what I meant by the maximum allowable Mach number, and the speculation around that. We already know for a fact that the F-22 is (claimed to be) Mach limited, that is to say, Mach effects prevent safe flight before thrust is unable to overcome the drag forces any longer. I mentioned speed in a dive because piston-engined planes in WWII already turned out to be able to shake themselves to bits, lose control etc in a dive, and while we now have supersonic aeroplanes, they can have limits to the Mach parameter, which even if not encountered in level flight might be in diving flight. Whether one can find these values or not though is another question because a Mach limitation is "tactical" weakness. Princeofdelft (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Roll posts

"All we know are the facts, ma'am" - so let's get them right. In this article the roll posts are fed with gas from the LP turbine but it seems clear from the F-135 article ('bypass duct air is sent to a pair of roll post nozzles') and the Rolls-Royce LiftSystem article ('bypass air from the engine goes out through a pair of roll-post nozzles') that they are in fact supplied with air from LP compressor exit. 86.182.42.217 (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

What makes you so sure that this is the one that's in error? It's possible that both are right, too. Either way, we need to check the reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, 86. This issue seems to have happened before. The refs I saw agree, but there could be a misinformed ref out there. Or perhaps the misunderstanding is due to the fact that compression increases temperature, so roll post air might feel warm to the human touch, while still being considered cool in engine terms. Or maybe F-35B has been mistaken for the Harrier. TGCP (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he was correct, per the sources. The statement in the article wes referenced, but there was nothing in the source to support the claim. - BilCat (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably misread "Low Pressure Compressor" as "Low Pressure Turbine" or something. Its good to get this stuff right, so awesome that someone sorted it out. Princeofdelft (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Cost-cutting raises costs?

Interesting commentary at Pentagon Must Push Back On Congressional Cuts to Keep F-35 Costs from Rising. - BilCat (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup it is all about economies of scale. The big issue to watch for is that if the US cuts orders, this will drive up the costs for allies which will cause them to cut numbers ordered or cancel entirely, which will drive up costs for the remaining allies. Works just like a zipper. If this happens it will be important to catalog the ripple effect here in the article. - Ahunt (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It's the balance between absolute cost and value I suppose. This actually also illustrates how much vested interest there is in selling this thing to people, which connects very well to all the discussions on sales pitches. This post is relevant, not "forum" because it contributes to the case for taking the most neutral tone possible, and not simply propagating various claims by these vested interests, so "plane is designed with xxx in mind, hence bell A and whistle B" rather than "this plane can xxx very well using bell A and whistle B". We might be discussing cost right NOW, but in fact mission elements can also be very sensitive to developments, and that needs to be kept in sight by the article in order not to simply feed the grandiose claims of whoever, to the layman reading the article.Princeofdelft (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget that all such projects have detractors, who may or may not have neutral reasons for opposing such projects. For example, some groups oppoese military spending to variaous degrees, and would never accept military projects no matter what the costs. Others, epsecially politicians, have their own pet projects they wish to push, some military, and some not. These factors also have to be taken into consideration, as we have to be discerning in the criticism we add, that it is also neutral. - BilCat (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

UK SDSR

To quote from the SDSR document [1] We will need to operate only one aircraft carrier ... We will fit a catapult to the operational carrier to enable it to fly a version of the Joint Strike Fighter with a longer range and able to carry more weapons. ... Installing the catapult and arrestor will allow the UK to acquire the carrier-variant of Joint Strike Fighter ready to deploy on the converted carrier instead of the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant. Seems pretty clear that only one CVF carrier will be fitted for CATOBAR. On the other hand, what happens to the other CVF isn't clear at all. Letdorf (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Didn't we split off all this foreign noise into a different article? Hcobb (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is where it should go. - Ahunt (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hcobb it's possible to suggest the correct place for a discussion without being dismissive and (depending on how you read it) rude. And for the record the fact that a major customer/financial contributor/and technological contributor has changed their requirements with possible implications on the future of the F-35B makes it less "foreign noise" and more something which will affect the USMC. Mark83 (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree with above sentiments, especially given previous arguably "anti-British" comments, to be quite honest. The information does indeed very much affect the landscape with regards to the B-type F-35, and while one can always have a discussion on whether it is best placed here or not, the attitude expressed just detracts from the value of the entire project and makes it look like a little America-plugging exercise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princeofdelft (talk • contribs) 20:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted on the "anti-british" point, that Hcobb has asked "Is the noise about flying PAK FA up to a level worth mentioning yet?" on the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier article talk page (air group section), obviously the idea of the QE class carriers flying the PAK FA is nonsense which leads me to question the motives Hcobb may have had in posting such a thing. Worth keeping an eye on as it may affect the quality of these articles. G.R. Allison (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The SDSR confirmed that an unconfirmed number of F-35Cs would be purchased and that both QE carriers will be contructed. What the second QE carrier will operate will be decided at a later point. Quite vivid blur (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that the statements in the 2010 SDSR imply that both carriers will be modified to include catapults. While it does not explicitly state that the second one will be modified, it does talk about both carriers, as previously ordered, not being interoperable with close allies. In addition, it states that one possible use of the carrier that will be held in extended readiness is rotating it with the operational carrier, something effectively impossible if it does not have a catapult and arrestor cables. Given that the second carrier is planned to be completed about 2 years after the first, which is now expected in 2020 (see referenced document), the text implied delaying choices on the second carrier to the 2015 SDSR.

The reality is that the document is not explicit and has language which some people read to imply that only one will be modified. Thus, we should not be explicit either. I have modified the article to say "at least one".

It should also be noted that the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier article states that both will be modified. We should not contradict that article. Both articles should take the same position on if it will be one or both of the carriers which will have catapults.Makyen (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

We state what the SDSR states. Anything else requires a reference. Simple as that - no "implying" etc. Mark83 (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Bloomberg hit piece

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-01/pentagon-said-to-see-higher-f-35-costs-delays-up-to-three-years.html

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is scheduled to be briefed tomorrow on new cost and schedule assessments for the F-35 and other aircraft, said the officials, who requested anonymity because details aren’t public. Software, engineering and flight difficulties are greater than expected, the officials said.

My vote is wait a few days and see what else leaks out. Hcobb (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I got word from the horse's mouth of the Industry, wait I mean the other end...

http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/11/01/2595224/more-cost-increases-delays-predicted.html

Loren Thompson, Lexington Institute defense analyst and consultant to contractors, said the added delays are due in part to technical problems with the aircraft and software that aren't critical but are time-consuming and costly to fix.

So adding it in. Hcobb (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

UK operating a single variant

To quote from the SDSR page 23: although the stated plan is for the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy to operate a single variant. making the statement although the stated plan is for the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy to operate a single variant correct. Perhaps Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) could explain why he has reverted this edit twice (the second time as a minor edit)? Bjmullan (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont know why your edit was removed but it may be that the phrase doesnt appear anywhere in the SDSR. The phrase "Royal Air Force" only appears three times in the document and one of them is the glossary! and none of them on page 23. MilborneOne (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

On page 5 it states: In terms of the Royal Air Force, by the 2020s it will be based around a fleet of two of the most capable fighter jets anywhere in the world: a modernised Typhoon fleet fully capable of air-to-air and air-to-ground missions; and the Joint Strike Fighter, the world’s most advanced multi-role combat jet. and on page 23 is states: The UK plans to operate a single model of JSF, instead of different land and naval variants.. I would not consider it OR to say the statement that was reverted. Bjmullan (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Confused as most people would think the term "quote from the SDSR" would normally mean an acutal quote from the SDSR! hence my comment. It may be better just to leave it as it was although the stated plan is for the United Kingdom to operate a single variant which is what the SDSR says. As far as I can see it does not mention that the aircraft will be operated by the Royal Navy. MilborneOne (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

All we know at present is that the UK has purchased two F35B for trails, but what happens to them now is any ones guess and the SDSR statement that in future the United Kingdom plans to operate a single variant of the F35 the C model. We can only state the facts as published its speculation that the RN will operate any. The next defence review is in 2015 when these aircraft will have to be ordered or not as the case may be and we may know more by then. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Royal Navy currently operates the jets based on their carriers. The Royal Air Force currently operates jets based on land. SDSR2010 states that a single variant will be used for both land based and carrier based F-35 jets. It is well beyond reasonable to believe that such a massive restructuring will occur within the UK armed forces as to result in only one branch operating both land and carrier based F-35C jets. If there were some type of rumblings that there would be a massive restructuring along the lines required, then I would say maybe we should not say both. To my knowledge, there are no such rumblings. The wording that states that both the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy will operate F-35C jets is appropriate for the article. Makyen (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This is getting a bit digressive, but FAA and RAF units have both been operating a common Harrier GR7/GR9 fleet from both land and ship since 2006, under Joint Force Harrier (now Joint Strike Wing). The SDSR document quoted by Bjmullan above would appear to envision a similar arrangement for the F-35C. Letdorf (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

In the 1920s and 1930s the Fleet Air Arm was part of the Royal Air Force and the Navy provided some of the pilots and observers. No reason that a combined operational and maintenance set up for the Lightning could not be done in the future considering the cost savings that would bring. MilborneOne (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Joint Force Harrier appears to already put both the RAF and RN units under one command structure. However, the squadrons continue to be separately a part of the RAF (2 squadrons) and Royal Navy (1 squadron). I find it interesting that people are objecting to wording in the article based on their speculations as to possible reorganization of these units based on the fact that the SDSR was not explicit in stating that the carrier squadrons would be under the Royal Navy. Are there some major rumblings that this will occur? Is there any reason that the drafters of SDSR2010 would even think that being more explicit was desirable, let alone necessary? Was there anywhere in SDSR2010 where they were explicit in such matters where the status of the units was to be unchanged?

I actually don't care if the article states that the F-35Cs will be under RAF and RN control. What I do care about is that the article currently states the number 12 which implies that will be all the F-35Cs purchased. I have added to the article so that it does not leave that implication.Makyen (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Now that I've checked(!), I actually can't find the quote given by Bjmullan in the SDSR document [2]. However, SDSR Fact Sheet 9 [3] does say [The Queen Elizabeth-class's] most potent capability will be delivered by routinely embarking 12 Joint Strike Fighters jointly operated by Royal Navy and RAF pilots. Of course "pilots" isn't quite the same as "squadrons". Letdorf (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC).

When I looked, prior to originally responding, I did not find the quote either. Definitely not on page 23. I must admit that I assumed that MilborneOne stating the quote didn't exist immediately after the "quote" being posted was sufficient. I further assumed that anyone interested would make the trivial check to verify that the "quote" was inaccurate. I considered the "quote" to be irrelevant. Clearly, one statement that the "quote" did not exist was not sufficient. Perhaps I should have reiterated MilborneOne's point and pointed out that the "quote" was, at best, a paraphrase.

My statement regarding squadrons was based on the Joint Force Harrier article and links from there which show RAF squadrons: No. 1 Squadron RAF and No. 4(R) Squadron RAF along with RN squadron 800 Naval Air Squadron as the current squadrons.

The argument for believing the RN will operate the jets based on their carriers assumes a continuation of the status quo. No one has provided any links that give any indication that a change in the status quo regarding this issue is currently contemplated by the UK.

The argument for believing that the RAF will operate all UK F-35C aircraft assumes a change in the status quo which is based on the lack of explicit statement in SDSR2010 that the planes will be operated by the RN. SDSR2010 does not make explicit positive statements regarding this type of issue for any other area. Thus, there is no reason to believe that the lack of such statement is significant in this case.

All arguments expressed in favor of RAF-only F-35C operation have been arguing the semantics of statements which the people writing them had no reason to even conceive that they need to be absolutely clear on this specific issue. It is likely that those making the statements thought they were being clear on the issue as all statements are consistent with someone not thinking about an RAF only issue coming out of left field.

I consider the argument for believing that the RN will no longer be operating the squadron to be wholly made up only in the mind of someone with a bias. Alternately, it is just a troll. I am happy to re-evaluate this if any reputable source can be pointed to as indicating that this change is contemplated by the UK.

Stating RAF and RN operation of the aircraft is not relevant to this article. The number of planes ordered and potential usage is relevant.

Unless someone is still arguing to state RN and RAF in the article, lets drop this issue. This is not a forum.

Makyen (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Agrees as stated above We can only state the facts as published ---Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Bit more The December issue of Air Forces Monthly has an article on the SDSR which states

The order for the JSF is to be changed from 138 F35-Bs to as few as 60 F35Cs, a faster longer-ranged and more capable aircraft than the B model, for use by both the RAF and RN.

We can go with that as its from a reliable source. It also states HMS Queen Elizabeth will be finished as designed and when completed will not be able to handle conventional take-off and landing aircraft. I realise the last bit is more for the carrier article but could also be added as background. If no objections I will change the details for the UK aircraft to reflect the above.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it (based on your statement above) contradicts SDSR2010 regarding completing the QE tends to indicate that the article might have been written prior to the release of SDSR2010. Someone else linked a similar article with a near-identical QE statement (which I am not finding at the moment) which was published on-line prior to the release of SDSR2010. The 138 number also contradicts SDSR2010 which stated 150 as the original quantity to be ordered. This might just be someone rounding to 150 in the SDSR. Paper publishing has significant lead times and may not be the best source for something that is rapidly changing. While Air Forces Monthly appears to be a good source, the December (deadline probably in early to mid October, given an early November delivery date) paper version might be a bit out of date on this issue.

An electronic version of a similar article can be found on the Air Forces Monthly website. However, it states "perhaps just 50", not the 60 you quote. In addition, it mentions possible cuts by other customers.

Quite frankly, the "as few as 60" and "perhaps just 50" numbers appear to be speculation on their part. This is particularly likely given that they have used two different numbers. While Air Forces Monthly may have high journalistic standards (no idea on my part), all that would be required to state numbers in such a non-definitive manner is that they can calculate them as a possible low-end based on various assumptions on their part. I would object to using those numbers in any capacity other than a statement explicitly credited to Air Forces Monthly, not just referenced. This would be something like:

... However, it will be less than the 150 originally planned(SDSR ref). Air Forces Monthly suggested that perhaps just 50 will be ordered (Air Forces Monthly ref).

Overall, this is an encyclopedia article not a news article. As such, we should be less inclined to put in every last bit of speculation. My personal opinion is that we should wait for a while (potentially months/years) until we have more information on what is really happening regarding the UK order. It is likely that real choices on this issue will not occur until SDSR2015, or even later.

More on latest snafu

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-04/lockheed-s-stevens-says-f-35-may-need-more-time-more-dollars-.html http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2010/11/04/01.xml&headline=Gates Briefed On JSF Delay

Work this into the article or is it enough already? Hcobb (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The latest news reports as of today have now identified the F-35 in the words of the US Defense Department as a "troubled project", apparently an official term for a @#$%^&* project. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC).

Ie., the lastest incarnation of McNamara's folly (one of his many, anyway) - the F-111. (Note that the F-4 was actually the closest thing to what McN envisioned. - BilCat (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Jon Lake article

The latest ref about Eurofighters beating F-35s is from this guy?

http://typhoon.starstreak.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1556&start=170#p11496

F-22 has twin engines, and carries 25,000 lb of fuel.

F-35 has one engine and carries 18,000 lb of fuel.

Hcobb (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

All this gripe over F-35 comparisons and yet how many nations have canceled orders due to the jets performance?? The only jet Lockheed has compared it to is the Su-30's, and didn't the Typhoon get obliterated when it went up against the Su-30MKI?? http://www.domain-b.com/aero/july/2007/20070720_indra_dhanush.htm

But the F-15 outperforms the the Su-30MKI also? http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/11/06/318506/video-us-red-flag-pilot-candidly-assesses-su-30mkis-limits-rafales-dirty-tricks.html

So where does that leave the Typhoon?? -Nem1yan (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't get your point here the link goes to a forum ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Jon Lake (they guy from the forum) apparently wrote the aviation monthly article. He's quite biased towards the Eurofighter to begin with. -Nem1yan (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Lake is correct that the F-22 can carry 25,000 lb of fuel, but not in the combat configuration, while the F-35's figure is for the combat config. So I cast doubt on the RS of Lake. Hcobb (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If its the same Jon Lake ? I still don't get the point are you saying he's not reliable as the article he has done on the F-35 is quite good. This is him; Jon Lake freelance aerospace writer and consultant, Defence Editor at Arabian Aerospace, freelance aerospace writer and consultant at Freelance, was the Defence Editor at Flight Daily News, Journalist/Editor at Trident Communications, Editor at Aerospace/Midsummer would suggest he knows a thing or two.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

In a similar RAND Corporation tanker-denial scenario simulation

Mr. Sweeney, you overlooked a mention of RAND pulling the same trick on the F-35 (which you erased) on the F-22. So you might want to delete this later section as well in order to complete the whitewash. Hcobb (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have never edited the F-22 article, what are you trying to suggest ?--Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that you read this article before writing this article as your edits left a dangling reference in this article (quoted as the section title here) to information you had deleted. Now please do something useful and merge in this part: "RAND has disavowed the critical remarks" with the paragraph above it that also says that RAND said that the seal clubbing had nothing to do with air to air combat performance. Hcobb (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I am unable to add what you suggest as its not mentioned in my sources and can I suggest you tone down your remarks is there any need for Now please do something useful. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Orders table

I see that a table has recently been added to this article detailing the procurement plans for all the nations intending F-35 orders. While I think this table is quite useful, since it deals with procurement I believe it belongs over in Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement, where there has actually been a request for just such a table to be added, instead of in this article. Unless there are objections I will move it from here to there. - Ahunt (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The table fits in much better in the procurement article. -fnlayson (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree - no objection. MilborneOne (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed I added it so I will move it across.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! - Ahunt (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Exporting Stealth

Is it worth noting that the export versions of the F-35 Lightining II will be less stealthy than the US versions. For reference go to the F-15 Silent Eagle page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Apart from not being a reliable source as far as I can see the F-15 article doesnt mention stealth with regard to export F-35s. You really need a reliable source although I cant see any reason why the basic aircraft would be any different for export customers. MilborneOne (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I copy and past this from the silent eagle article:The F-15SE is to have the level of stealth allowed for export by the US government. It the law that forbids it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry still dont see any mention of F-35. MilborneOne (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MilborneOne, you may be looking too deeply into what is a statement made by an editor, which may be an editorialisation or misleading statement, it would be best not to assume that the article is perfect. And the 'level' of stealth is marvellously vague. It may be proportional reduction over the airframe before stealthing, it could be the vareity or sensativity of certain technologies to make the plane harder to detect, or it could be a flat value on the level of 'stealth' AKA visability. These are all plausable, contradictory interpretations, we can't assume which one or any of them to be the correct meaning. I see absolutely nothing to suggest export versions of the F-35 are weaker, the base level of presence-reduction should be assumed to be the same unless it is said directly to be different. For all we know, the level of 'stealth' isn't that "OMG AMAZING JUST LIKE THE MARKETING" anyhow and there would be no need to 'dumb it down'. Lots of assumptions, in which case we mention: None of it. Sticking with certainty, not over extensions, is the best approach. Kyteto (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me offer you a different reading of Boeing's marketing: All F-35s have reduced stealth WRT Raptors, because the aircraft was designed to be exportable. Having to redesign an export Raptor has been noted as one reason why export Raptors would be even more expensive than the domestic variety and you can tell which side a source is on WRT export Raptors if they include or exclude this fact. Hcobb (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That interpretation makes sense to me. If the version supplied to the UK, Canada or built in Turkey was going to have reduced capabilities over the US model they would all cancel today. - Ahunt (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily sure about that, it is actually very plausible that the US would improve its own version of the fighter. Ultimately however this is not reflected in the source and then should not be added to the article. I think this little discussion can be closed now. -Nem1yan (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It is plausable that there will be additional weapons, avionic and software changes made, and definantly upgrades will be made over time. And other nations have their hands tied, and cannot upgrade the F-35 with the same impunity, they have to plead and bow to Congress to make any modifications to a product they own. I am obviously a little sceptical of this level of restriction, but it is certain that the US Armed Forces will have an easier time making those upgrades than other nations. But this is no reflection upon the stealth profiling, and of little relevance. Kyteto (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Loren B. Thompson vs National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform

Go read the LBT article and you will see that he is responding to the Pentagon whispers and not the cochairs proposal which is more or less solid and surely no rumor. So there are two attacks on the F-35B, one from the cochairs and another from the Navy. The current edit makes LBT look like he's talking about the wrong attack.

He does have another article where he talks about the cochair attack, but I didn't see anything really notable in it. Hcobb (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you possibly connect this to the article in some way? I mean this seems to be relevant information but nobody can see how it ties into the article. -Nem1yan (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is my text which got editted out of the F-35B section:

The chairmen of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform have called for the cancellation of the F-35B along with other USMC specific vehicles. Air Force Magazine has reported that "Pentagon officials" are considering canceling the F-35B because its short range means that the bases or ships it operates from will be within range of hostile tactical ballistic missiles. However Lockheed Martin consultant Loren B. Thompson has said that this rumor is merely a result of the usual tensions between the US Navy and Marine Corps, and there is no alternative to the F-35B as an AV-8B replacement.

By deleting the ref to the inside the Pentagon attack, User:Jim Sweeney makes it seem like this LBT article is about the cochairs modest proposal, which it's not. Hcobb (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that should be put back into the article. Not only is it legitimate criticism, but it is needed for the context of the remarks that follow as you have indicated. The refs are need as well, refs are read by readers who are serious about the subject and need more detail. - Ahunt (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

OK can you explain why three refs are needed for this statement In November 2010 as part of a cost-cutting measure, the co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform suggested canceling procurement of the F-35B and halving orders of F-35As and F-35Cs unless one or more of them are unreliable only one ref is needed to confirm the statement.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Refs were partially lost during many edits. I re-instated them, and I suggested in the Edit summary line that you choose between DoDbuzz and NYtimes, if 3 is too many. The Fiscal Commission ref should stay anyway, as it is the original source. Fisc is the narrow original source, and the other refs are setting the issue into context, so at least two refs should stay for this sentence. TGCP (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no limit on the number of refs used. I suggest that more is better as links go stale over time. - Ahunt (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Cracking up

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a7d1f2ccf-6f75-4c62-a78c-d57c7a6537e6&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest The aft bulkhead of the F-35B BH-1 fatigue-test specimen has developed cracks after 1,500 hours of durability testing, Ares has learned. This is less than one-tenth of the planned fatigue test program, which is designed to prove an 8,000-hour airframe life with a safety factor of two.

Add or not? Hcobb (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I would wait see if anything else comes of it remember not news Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those developmental problems that happens in most designs. In all likelihood this will be redesigned and fixed and then retested, which is the normal procedure. It is probably of note mostly because it illustrates why the program is behind schedule and getting further behind all the time. - Ahunt (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The original link was a blog but here's a news story: [4]. And Ahunt this seems to be a new development, so how can it explain years of delay/cost increases? Mark83 (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't indicating that this particular snag has already caused delays, but it is representative of many other similar developmental problems that have put this aircraft design well behind schedule, hence it may be worth mentioning this somewhat minor problem as being typical of the type of problem that is delaying the program. - Ahunt (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Again the F-15

The F-15SE's internal bays are FAR smaller than those in the F-35. As with the F-22 the bays are clearly intended to hold the AMRAAM, not large bombs. The source you posted only says the F-15 carries JDAMS, that about as ambiguous as saying the F-15 carries bombs. It gives no indication as to the size. Saying that it has "exactly the same armament" is flat out wrong. Its your own statement, it doesnt come from the source. -Nem1yan (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Posted ref to slide with exactly the same loadout as F-35B. Hcobb (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Cant carry ASRAAM, cant carry MBDA meteor, F-15 can carry 4 AMRAAMS (F-35 cant) same with AIM-9's; even still your comparison is only partially correct on the F-35B and it should be reflected as such, especially since the F-35B might not even make it into service. F-35A and C hold 2000 lb JDAMS and your addition leaves this out and gives the impression that it only carries the 1k's. It should be rephrased at the very least since the armament is clearly 'not' the "exact same".-Nem1yan (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Too much propaganda-like

After all, this article aim to inform about the aircraft or be propaganda? I read so many "best of everything" that I thought I was reading an refrigerator advertisement instead of an article about an airplane. This kind of attitude reduces the value of the article as information source, because we know that almost all advertising is false or contains at most half-truths.

Note: I could even edit the article to be more consistent, but I do not like to spend my time with something that will be reversed immediately after by angry fanboys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.189.118.10 (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

He/she does have a point - there are two many comments like - Lockheed Martin has suggested that the F-35 could also replace the USAF's F-15C/D fighters in the air superiority role and the F-15E Strike Eagle in the ground attack role At the moment it does read a lot like a Lockhead Martin sales pitch and could use a good peer review to get rid of the cruft. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I went and dug out the “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run” quote lately. Are there any other issues we can add to the article's Critiques section? (A ghetto from which there is no escape to the rest of the article.) Hcobb (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Although we need a critiscm section the one we have is not very well presented. We have two many Fred in the bar says its rubbish type quotes which do not give the impression of being very encyclopedic. It would be better to show the problems as analyised from reliable sources rather than random man in pub quotes. MilborneOne (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

But sources like that arent really available. The aircraft hasnt entered service yet and its very nature makes it quite secretive. Getting hard evidence from anyone other than the DoD or LM is pretty unlikely. And considering the DoD and of course LM currently have a bit of a love affair with the aircraft I doubt you are going to find too much negativity surrounding the aircraft from those two. -Nem1yan (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree but I am not sure that Chen Hu, editor-in-chief of World Military Affairs magazine or Former RAND author John Stillion know anymore than the man in the pub who has a mate. I would have thought more reliable sources could be found. MilborneOne (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Want me to go get a big pile of discredited Aus Air Power hot air and add that in? Hcobb (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Not particularly but are they any better quality sources than the ones we have already. MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

3.9 billion dollars divided by 31 aircraft

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g048YDrj7JSsqlK556Zx939pauFg?docId=CNG.df2a4d2f00f0c5f1a1eb1fddae867df7.ab1 Pentagon to buy 31 Lockheed Martin stealth fighters

Do we have a new cost now? Note this is for a mixed bag of different types. Hcobb (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say we do, at US$125.8 each, at least for this essentially low-rate batch. The only problem is this many or may not include much in the way of program pricing, in other words it may be just the incremental cost per unit. I think it could be included if worded cautiously. - Ahunt (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• FYI: Lockheed Martin put out this press release on the Lot 4 contract. This is being reported by several aviation media outlets also. -fnlayson (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

“We are focused on getting 5th generation fighter capability into the hands of U.S. and allied pilots as quickly and as cost-effectively as possible,” said Larry Lawson, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and F-35 program general manager. This could be cited along with some media refs. Gotta love the PR machine. - Ahunt (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Which admits that they have yet to do so. Hence the Raptor ain't fifth gen. Hcobb (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You certainly could read it that way! Of course aerospace company PR depts have a long history of not having a clue what they are talking about. - Ahunt (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.daytondailynews.com/business/air-force-has-1-billion-share-of-f-35-aircraft-order-1010399.html The Air Force’s share is 10 aircraft priced at a total of $1 billion

Well that is almost the same as the Israeli price. (And 2/3rds of the F-22 cost...) Hcobb (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If the aircraft actually reaches the planned $89 million per aircraft price then its going to take alot away from the credibility of many of the sources who were screaming that the aircraft would be nearly $200 million a piece. The craving for information is leading to a lot of unconfirmed rumors being distributed as fact. -Nem1yan (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

More Objective Tone?

Tentatively, also being a little new to this, I would like to suggest that where possible terms like "stealth" be replaced by those such as "low-observable". I say "terms like" because while those are the ones I have changed around here, there are probably plenty more to which the same observations apply. As a necessary measure in the same spirit, I have tried to avoid "The plane is stealthy" and rather use "The plane has been designed to be low-observable".

That might seem like nit-picking of sorts, however these are some reasons why I feel it could be a very good idea. I have implemented such alterations in the "stealth" section. Note that the content hasn't been changed, except to suggest the intended consequences of the design features without too "factually" affirming "total-effectiveness".

The reasons are:

--The tone of many fora on this subject (usually devoid of real information of course) is very low, extremely tabloid-esque, and full of what I think gets called "fanboy" behaviour. More technical vocabulary helps to distance the article from that tone, avoiding associations with sci-fi perceptions about invisible aircraft. (Just see how many computer games have been titled "F-67 L-Observable fighter!" Or somesuch.

--Saying "it is stealth" is overused in hobbyist circles and engenders subjective conclusions in the reader about what the effect of the design-feature is, and implies a Boolean value... "it is stealth, or it isn't".

--The term "low-observable" is the term used by professionals, and technical texts. It isn't "encyclopaedic" certainly in my view, but also objectively (and by convention) I feel to use "stealth" outside of quotation marks. Texts on military aircraft (though naturally I can only speak of the ones I've seen) use the term "low-observable" it is less bombastic, and describes what is being referred to soberly.

--The style of writing should not use terms like "very difficult to shoot down" because that again is vague and suggests total confidence of success. I think it is fair to say that because of the multitude of factors that affect matters "on the day" my adjustments reflect, again, a more sober attitude. Because one does not know HOW difficult it would be to detect and shoot down an F-35 it suffices simply to say that it is designed to make this particularly difficult with respect to the norm. In other words how hard is "very hard". As long as this isn't quantified it adds nothing. - User:princeofdelft 06:31, 12 October 2010 (CEST )

Good points, it is important to keep the article encyclopedic and resist the fancruft language that creeps in now and then. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ahunt, sadly it appears others don't agree as my changes were largely reverted with use of the term "stealthy" being introduced. This is a popular term, but it is akin to saying "jet engine" instead of "turbofan" or somesuch. It is a much more "layman's" term and also doesn't point out in what way the feature is beneficial. Many of the F-35's features are distinctive anti-RADAR features, so to speak. They are not the only "stealth" features, but they are the most distinctive.

I'd like to appeal to anyone who is serious about this page being something others can take seriously to maintain a technical tone, and avoid woolly terms like "stealthy". You will not find that term in other encyclopaediae except as a synonym (amongst other things) for "Low-Observable Military Hardware". I've reintroduced changes in the face unexplained revertions. Princeofdelft (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not a technical work or manual. Stealth is the common catchall term for low low-observables. Being more formal is fine, but no reason to removal all mentions of 'stealth'. If you check out the history page, you'll see these 'reversions' were explained in edit summaries. -fnlayson (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I read those. Overwordy? Alright, you know as well as I do. But "add back some wording" is just a statement that you changed it back. The reason for introducing quotes around 'stealth' was indeed that I don't see that it shouldn't be included at all, however there are other places where encyclopaediae do not use "common catchall terms". It isn't like it is appallingly offensive to me personally, because I can see through it, but saying something is "stealthy" makes a mockery of the aims of such an article. This isn't a tabloid article I thought, but rather an online fact-book of sorts. Moreover, given that there's a link to the subject of low-observable it is necessary to explain why "my version" is any worse, because if it is just as good it may as well stay. Have you read what I said above as my explanation for the initial change? Not all the points have been answered and I would appreciate that before just reverting changes that make the article look more like its been written using facts and less like its been written by a crowd at an airshow. That's my view at least, and I feel I've supported it above. Princeofdelft (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. At least for me, "stealth" means invisible to radar, regardless of distance from the radar or that side of the aircraft is visible to it. And both the F22 and F35 are not so capable, they are "hard to see" to a radar, but not invisible. And I believe that difference needs to be clear, given that aircraft that really are "invisible" as the F117 and B2 needs radical designs to achieve this goal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.189.118.10 (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The words I would avoid in this article are things like "Invisible", "Undetectable", "Invincible" (Other than in the context of aircraft carriers), etc. Stealth aircraft is a well known and often used term and ever since the war of aggression against the Serbian people, well understood to not mean undetectable. Hcobb (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments on content, not style and political snipes:

I'm afraid I just flat disagree that "stealth" is well-understood. It is by me, and it is by you from what I can see, but that isn't the point. Having said this, an article exists on it and the like so no biggie. The term, in my view has been hyped up, in a similar way to the similarly (thus) misleading "5th generation" term. It's not "wrong" in itself, it has merely become a word for computer-games. Ignorant persons regularly suggest, even on fora, for grown-ups, that "stealth" means that other aeroplanes, and systems in general cannot pick them up on RADAR etc etc. Seriously, I am surprised that you haven't seen this going on.

This said, I am going on about this, and that probably lends it more credence and importance than it really should have. The point is, you wouldn't readily call it a "fast" aeroplane. Much less a "speedy" or "quick" plane. "Stealth" is a vague, and qualitative word in the same way. Do we say "fast jet" or do we say "Supersonic Military Aircraft"? To me, that's the same question in essence as: Do we say "stealth fighter" or "low-observable military aeroplane". It isn't a children's book, it's supposed to be encylopaedic.

Of course, you are right that even MORE slang, or explicitly incorrect (instead of open to misinterpretation) words are worse. Saying it is "stealth" means well but in my view is "conversational" language not "literature/technical" language, while "invisible" is simply nonsense.

Note that I have no expectation that it will be changed, and am not out to annoy people. I appreciate the feedback anyway. It might not be a "forum" but I still think it's good to hear what people think as long as no harm's done. :) Princeofdelft (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Engine packaging vs. F-35 model

Just to be clear, the engine packaging issue impacts on BOTH the F-35B and the F-35C, because the Navy/Marine team already has in place delivery options for less powerful jet engines.

This is not an issue for the F-35A simply because USAF bases have runways for huge transport aircraft. Hcobb (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that engine "power" is irrelevant in this case. The problem is the size of the engine. -Nem1yan (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

F-35B slips to 2017

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-07/lockheed-marine-corps-f-35-gets-two-extra-years-to-fix-glitches.html The extra two years would be in addition to an earlier 13- month extension, to November 2015, that Gates ordered in the F- 35’s overall $30 billion development phase.

Change the in-service date to 2017? Hcobb (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

4.5th Generation

At least there is a legal definition for a 4.5th generation jet fighter in the United States that has been wiki-broadened to cover the world. It's a checklist that can be applied. The three countries that are developing 5th generation fighters all have slightly different checklists. Hcobb (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Still it is all a marketing and fan boy stuff best just ignored. MilborneOne (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Fifth generation ?

How can the F-35 Lightning II be a fifth generation warplane without TVC control or supercruise ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

US fighter manufacturer Lockheed Martin uses "fifth generation fighter" to describe the F-22 and F-35 fighters, with the definition including "advanced stealth", "extreme performance", "information fusion" and "advanced sustainment".G.R. Allison (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hyper-maneuverability is very useful to have when people are shooting at you. You see a lot of this on late 4th gen fighters. It is much more useful to not be shot at because you know where they are and they don't know where you are. Hcobb (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The term fifth-generation seems to be term designed by LM & Adopted by the Americans in general, from what I have been able to glean from various fairly nonsensical discussions, to try to discredit aircraft from other manufacturers. The fact that one can distinguish new trends, features, etc doesn't stop that being true. The use of the term in factual articles is unhelpful because it isn't a "factual" term anymore than any other subjective label. It isn't the same as saying "All-Weather" or "Twin-Engined" it's just a political jargon term.

The terms used I believe are "extreme performance" amongst other things. The F-35 doesn't have "extreme" performance from what I can tell. It will probably do a lot of things really well, and everything, so don't anyone get all upset, but it can't be said to be somehow incredible, not from the details made public.

As for "they don't know where you are" I've already explained countless times elsewhere why that sort of black/white talk just makes one look like en eight year old playing micromachines. It also misses the point that; 'Low-Obs being useful doesn't mean manoeuvrability is now useLESS either'.

The answer is that it is 5th generation because Lockheed Martin needs to sell it, and thus they have labelled it as that. Its many kewl features are nice, but they are incidental. LM would use some ridiculous label to try and hoodwink people into spending their money on it anyway. Princeofdelft (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Your last paragraph actually applies to all fighter generation claims. As currently deveised, it's all marketing bunk invented by manufacturers, lobbyists and users, and is next to useless in evaluating/comparing aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

To quote Dilbert, "How is marketing different from lying?" - Ahunt (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

To drag this back to the article though, one might say that the discrepancies between whatever definitions of "5th generation" and the actual envisaged capabilities of this aircraft should be mentioned. Obviously I would prefer to simply not say "5th generation" for the reasons we have all of us illustrated, but if it is to be used, one would have thought something calling itself "encyclopaedia" would point it out if a term generally used (and thus included) is not consistent. Please excuse this being a pet hate of mine but the smug "yeah but we're 5th generation so we're better, even when and if we're not" gets on my nerves. :p Please don't say theres a WP:Gets-on-my-nerves :).

Look... it just seems that if something is generally called a "Blue motor-car" but is in fact orange, any encyclopaedia mentioning that it's called a "blue motor-car" would communicate it if even the manufacturer's definition of "blue" excluded it. :) Princeofdelft (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but we must also base the counter claims on reliable sources. That's quite difficult as applies to fighter generations, as the standards differ from person to person, and organization to organization. We can report that so-and-so diagrees with such-and-such claim, but simply stating that the claim is wrong isn't the way to go, as there is no single definitive definition of fighter generations in the first place. - BilCat (talk) 05:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll go as far to say that "fighter generations" are nothing more than meaningless advertising claims and I agree with User:Princeofdelft that we shouldn't be doing LM's advertising for them. If it were up to me I would leave it out entirely, but if it has to stay I would be in favour of saying that LM "claims it is 5th generation", rather buying into the advertising and saying that it is. - Ahunt (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

In other articles we have just removed any reference to generations as explained it doesnt really add any value to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree - "fighter generation" is a pretty meaningless concept, IMHO, and given a lack of a strict definition, not a useful way to describe something in a WP article. Letdorf (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

I also agree, I'd fully support removing any reference to generations or altering it to point out LM claim such a thing (most media sources claim it too but that's beside the point). G.R. Allison (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to do this then please first delete List of fighter aircraft and replace it with an automatically generated category page. Hcobb (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem arose when the US skipped a generation of aircraft and jumped straight into producing aircraft like the F-22. Up until that point the Europeans, Russians, and Americans were all producing new fighters around the same schedule so it was fairly easy to define a "generation". With "5th generation" the US decided to invest in stealth (I dont care if thats the politically correct term anymore) technology while the Europeans and Russians continued along the original plan and simply upgraded the existing systems (better maneuvering, radar, better engines, better range, better targeting etc...)While the Su-35, Mig 1.44, and Euro-deltas were being tested the Americans were pouring billions into ensuring they had the best fighter. The US got a step ahead with stealth and is simply bragging about it with touting its fighters as 5th gen. While true performance is always questionable the 5th gens do have an honest advantage on paper (which is why everyone continues to invest in the F-35 despite its delays.) Also the F-35 is said to outperform 4th gen fighters on all levels. If the F-35 can out turn an F-16 then its maneuverability is fine. Either way its pointless to argue about specifications when most of them arent available yet. -Nem1yan (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The F-35 is designed to match the maneuverability of the 4th gen F-16 while plenty of 4.5th gens coming into service recently better this. Just as the F-16's computer controls opened the way for the "backwards" (Canard in front of wing rather than tail behind wing) design of the Eurocanards, the F-22's compact AESA has enabled 4.5th generation electronics. However much being on the trailing edge of American technologies can save development costs, it does not make for a next generation fighter. Hcobb (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

All the studies that have mocked the F-35's performance figures have been from independent sources with questionable access to any real data. They've been about as reliable as that study that compared 6 F-22's to 3 Squadrons of J-11's. The F-35's avionics package is probably the most advanced in the world (Lockheed even stated that it's better than that of the F-22). The F-35 is trailing the F-22 from a hardware perspective, but it is still a first class, state of the art aircraft. If the US doesnt feel that that thrust vectoring or supercruise are necessary for it's fighter then that isnt a reason to doubt the aircrafts overall performance. Lockheed could've easily incorporated these features in the F-35, if they didnt then maybe they know something that we dont?? It is there job to design the aircraft, we only like to look. -Nem1yan (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with List of fighter aircraft that a reorganization would not fix. Just list the types in chronological order by decade (of first flight), from earliest to latest. That takes the intangibles out of the list. - BilCat (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

And a manually maintained list of that sort would be better than: Category:International fighter aircraft 2000-2009 in what way exactly? Hcobb (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally prefer categories over lists. The OR has got to go. Marcus Qwertyus 21:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me if I am being dense here, but I don't for the life of me understand why this has degenerated into a treatise on whether the F-35 is "any good" or not. That was not the point. No-one knows how good it is. Even Lockheed-Martin don't, because the very best they have is some contrived exercise to go by. The credibility of the criticisms of the aeroplane weren't the point either. The question was, in this discussion, I thought:

Is the term "fifth generation" fighter something that belongs not only in an encyclopaedia (there's an article about the concept which I've tried to make a little more even-handed and realistic) but in an encyclopaedia being used as an unqualified term to describe an aeroplane which clearly does not fulfill the requirements set BY THE PEOPLE WHO CLAIMED THIS STATUS FOR IT THEMSELVES

Even the existence of "generations" wasn't really the point RIGHT here and now, even though I have to indignantly protest against the suggestion that these "generations" make any sense before the Americans developed VLO as a design-feature. As Bilcat and others have also tried to explain. I would have been saying the exact same thing before, and anyway the most obvious deviation by the F-35 from the "5th Gen" definition given by LM is not to do with "stealth" its actually the conventional performance that clearly doesn't fit.Princeofdelft (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it seems to me that the following actions are in order:

• Removal of "...is a fifth generation..." with a statement that it is described thus by certain parties. It cannot "factually" be "5th gen" because no concrete definition exists, and its claimed performance is not consistent with the definitions given by those who claim thus.

• Description of why this is contentious OR extending the above to removal of the claim altogether, that is, illustration (allowing reader to judge), even-handedness (not favouring a claim that isn't factual), or silence.

• Investigating possible amendment to fighter-list or whatever, on the talk-page relevant to that article. (But NOT predicating the validity of this article upon the validity of THAT one, which would constitute a circular argument... that article's talk-page might be saying that one can't be chjanged unless this one is and that expresses a good ideal but does not logically follow because of the nature of the editorial process here.)

For the record I agree with user:Ahunt that the generations stuff is totally spurious, but that illustrating it to be what it IS (even-handedly of course) is a good second best, and implicitly more feasible (Hope I have interpreted that correctly user:Ahunt.

There was already concensus for this in my view, and what I'm doing here is asking for those who contributed to it to add to, or correct this summary of the existing views. I should add that the technical arguments given later seem a little irrelevant, and repeat claims made elsewhere. I trust I have pointed out why these are neither here nor there, with respect, for the current discussion. I plan to make these adjustments if others do not do it better and cleaner than me, true to form. Princeofdelft (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we continue to have a fifth generation article at all? Do we link there from here? What is the nature of this link? Hcobb (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well if I personally was writing an encyclopaedia, I would not do so. I would rather have an article describing all the features and characteristics hardware might have, and refer to those. Study of the history of aviation is well served by much of the content in the generations articles in my view, therefore, perhaps an article explaining "The Evolution of Combat Aircraft" would be useful. In this article, one could explain what parallel, conflicting, or synergistic trends have existed, including the Americans' latest ideas as often alluded to by you, user:Hcobb the ideas of the fighter-mafia maybe, and so forth.

Obviously though, the way things seem to work dictates that one can't just go there and hijack the pages. They have to be dealt with somewhat independently I guess. How's that done? New page to replace them, then suggest they be erased? I don't know. A link to fifth generation might be in order at the bottom of the page. Personally I find it sufficiently irrelevant to the content that I don't mind. It mildly irks me to lend credibility to the notion, and I think the relevant features all have their own links, and if they don't, there are people here qualified to write and evaluate them. Anyone? Princeofdelft (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Fifth generation is a term widely used in aviation articles and journals, it is also used by several militaries and media groups. Honestly unless someone can find a couple of well documented sources that flat out discredit grouping fighters according to "generations" there is no purpose in even discussing this. -Nem1yan (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I still disagree. It is nothing more than a marketing term designed to make potential customers feel that their current fighters need replacing. Just because some journalists buy into this marketing campaign doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. I go back to my original statement that the article can say "Lockheed Martin market their aircraft as "fifth generation"..." but not "it is fifth generation". Does the article on Coca-Cola say that "Coke adds life" or does it say that that was their advertising slogan at one time? - Ahunt (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

LockMart and even the United States are not the only one to use this term for this fighter. Even the Russians use the term in reference to the F-35. What is needed is a link at the top of this article to the 5th gen article where the problems with the 5th gen term can and are dealt with. Why not delete the fifth gen term from the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor article instead as the F-22 is less of a match to the given definition than the more advanced F-35 is? Hcobb (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont think foreign militaries are going to purchase an aircraft just because Lockheed but a sticker on it that says "5th gen". While I think you (Ahunt) could have a point you'd have to call practically every aviation journal and military source, that we rely on for the majority of our information, stupid for it to apply. The F-16 and F-18 could never hope to match the speed of the Mig-25, but that doesnt mean that they were any less capable airframes, and they certainly were still far more advanced. Show evidence that any 5th gen fighter is not far more technologically advanced than any aircraft in a preceding generation and then we can have a real discussion. The F-35 isnt even in production yet and it has secured more purchases than the Eurofighter or the Rafale. No nation is going to spend more money on a less effective design -Nem1yan (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The F-22A is currently flying with no imaging sensors. The Super Hornet, B1 and Strike Eagle (and many others) have visual, infrared and radar imaging capabilities. Hence if 5th gen applies to the Raptor then it isn't a very high standard. Hcobb (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The F-22 has a reported radar-cross section somewhere between a marble and a house-fly. Even with all their imaging capabilities the F-22 would knock them out of the sky. And the Super Hornet, B1 (which isnt a fighter), and Strike Eagle were designed from the outset to attack ground targets. The F-22 was designed for air superiority, and still it is being upgraded to attack ground targets as well. Your argument is like saying the F-16 shouldnt be classified as more advanced than the Mig-25 because the Mig is faster. -Nem1yan (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The F-35 isnt even in production yet and it has secured more purchases than the Eurofighter or the Rafale. there are only 31 production aircraft ordered in LRIP IV. No other contracts have been signed that I am aware of .--Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's honestly irrelevant, if nations weren't placing the F-35's features above those of the eurodeltas then they wouldn't be lined up to buy it, especially when the F-35 costs more and is facing all the delays and problems of new aircraft. If none of the purchasers of the F-35 are listening to Eurofighter magazine's definition of 5th gen then why are you? The eurodeltas are all fine aircraft but as of right now it seems that most nations see stealth as a necessity. -Nem1yan (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion here was about whether "fifth generation" was a useful, factual, descriptive thing to call an aeroplane, or merely a prapaganda/marketing ploy. Clear arguments were made to that effect and a reasonable degree of consensus achieved.

The performance of the F-35 was never the issue. The performance of the F-35 remains unknown in any case. The F-22 should also not have this term attached to it because it is unhelpful, and self-serving. It is important not to keep obfuscating by trying to talk about how good the F-35 is because thats a very big discussion and I can assure you that a lot of people don't agree with these assessments you present as fact either. The fact meanwhile that governments are buying the F-35 is immaterial, but could still VERY easily be down to more than only its effectiveness. Moreover governments can be mistaken. People bought the F-104 too, and so these points of yours are I'm afraid very shaky.

• A dangerous precedent would be set by saying "lots of governments do it, they must be right".
• Performance was not the issue. However, the F-35 does not meet LM's own definition of 5th generation anyway in my view. Whether the F-22 does is for the discussion on that page. In addition words like "extreme performance" have not been defined hence you can't test them, hence not encyclopaedic, but it seems difficult to argue that the flight performance claimed for the F-35 is "extreme".

The talk of generations has already been demonstrated to be illogical. The fact that many people do it is no argument whatsoever. Many people (even government people) use terms which have no place in an encyclopaedia, and which often aren't even standard words to be found in the dictionary. Just because people are influential moreover, it doesn't necessarily mean they are aware that they are, as I think user:Ahunt said, doing LM's marketing for them. People can be mistaken you know, and moreover they can be trying to achieve something politically. The term helps one to sell the plane (also to voters), and therefore it isn't a surprise that it is being used.

• It is false to suggest that the common use of a term (which has been used with more than one definition) makes a term encyclopaedic. Eurodeltas, a word you use, is also common it seems among commentators, at least it seems to be common on wiki, but it does not on any account belong in the text. Even if Barack Obama, and Ban-Kee-Moon and whoever else started saying "Eurodeltas" it wouldn't in itself make the term useful for wikipedia.

The suggestion that a reference is needed to "discredit" the term is utterly ludicrous and does not stand up to examination. A childrens encyclopaedia would not use the term "super-duper" even though loads of kids do, and even people on TV say it sometimes. A reference specifically "discrediting" this term would be hard to find, but common-sense prevails thankfully. Meanwhile, for all the talk of references, I've seen the Lockheed-Martin website quoted a lot, and frankly that is not a legitimate reference because it is an interested party, so physician heal thyself to some degree there. Are there references without vested interests that suggest that the term IS worthwhile? What arguments do those put forward?

• It is demonstrable that the more ridiculous a term is, the fewer "official references" will end up being written to specifically discredit it. The words do not help the cause of this work. That's been discussed, shown and frankly largely agreed. Given this I feel you need to explain not only why it is "ok" but why the article wouldn't be just as good without it. After all, if removing it does no harm, then it isn't even that much of an issue. Please defend your keenness to use this language in particular, why making the modifications user:Ahunt suggests isn't good enough (that way the term would be left in, with link after all), and why the article loses value with its loss. It seems obvious namely that some modification to how the article stood had to be made, and that the discussion needs to be between referring to the term at all, or not doing so.

The problem is that it isn't an informative, helpful, technical term. It is a jargon, marketing, political term. It has no consistent engineering or scientific definition, and history may well define things differently, because history will know the result, and what came after these planes. If for example in a few years another set of even more radically different planes are built then the F-22 and such may well be grouped with the EF and similar after all. All that needs to happen is for, perhaps pilotless drones to become dominant, or for a whole new propulsion system to be applied. Then the differences won't seem as important and history will see it differently. This is not necessarily LIKELY it is just a logical construct to show how fluid and vague these terms are. The reader can make their OWN mind up based on the facts about the aircraft, and for the time-being they still have articles describing what a 5th-gen plane is meant to be, and the different (hopefully) definitions fielded.

I tire of this, because discussion has already shown the term up as not being appropriate, and yet people feel the need to start AGAIN going on about how wonderful they think the aeroplane is, and that's just NOT relevant here. It is almost like what was discussed has just been totally ignored. None of the points have been answered. Incidentally, the thing about the F-16 vs the MiG25 is a wrong analogy. It is wrong to talk about generations, largely because technology evolves continuously, not in quantum leaps. THAT can be referenced in a great many places by the way. It follows from this, that bracketing planes into generations (which implies the quantum leap) is incorrect. One can talk about individual design/strategic paradigms which are somewhat new... the reinclusion of a gun, the move back to manoeuvrability as a priority, and so on. Dividing the F-16 from the MiG25 with the term "next generation" is though unhelpful. Looking back in HISTORY it is MORE helpful than it would have been at the TIME, but it is still lacking in validity because it adds very little to a discussion in which the differences between the designs are already known. If one mentioned some of the features and abilities of the F-16, then people could make their own choices. Meanwhile they would NOT (as I feel you're trying to do here user:Nem1yan) have their attention drawn away from the fact that thare are things the MiG25 could do which are highly relevant even today, and which might be made more relevant in an upgraded improved version of the same plane. That is, generation-talk gives the idea that previous designs are to be dismissed, whereas this is not the case. The wikipedia talk pages of these subjects collectively are replete with people trying to make this point, and being shouted down with performance statistics by people who just won't listen.

• The article here already DOES say that the F-35 is more advanced than other planes. I have noticed this, but it hasn't been brought up here. The analogy with the F-16/MiG25 is a total red-herring because its been stated that the F-35 is advanced, and suggested that it has high performance. The analogue would be to differentiate the F-16 from the MiG25 using generations-talk, and that would indeed be unhelpful, and pointless. It would also imply in the mind of the layman that some great divide separates these two planes and that a MiG25 can do nothing to harm or compete with the F-16. That would also be incorrect. On top of that, one might even argue that as a dedicated interceptor the MiG25 may ill be compared to an F-16 at all, and that one needs to guard against the suggestion that more technology means better result!! I digress however.

I think if you want to overturn the consensus here, you will need to actively defend your own belief that we NEED this jargon, and I think you need to actually answer at least some of the points, instead of constantly appealing to the unknown performance of the aircraft which was not in question anyway, and saying that a term is useful for the purposes of this article, simply because other people in the world have used it to achieve just the political aims we here object to, and to refer to something in a quick easy way, which is not what is needed here, where the focus is on a proper description. Did you know that political scandals often get tagged with a term "xxxxxGate" because of the Watergate affair? The news then uses it, and politicians too. It's a sort of nickname, that allows quick reference, but it doesn't mean that scandals given the suffix "Gate" are now an official type of event just because someone writes a self-serving arbitrary definition to go with it.

• "SomethingGate" : Extreme Embarrassment for government, must have the following features: ....... other scandals don't count. The terms are already used all over. By adding an arbitrary definition, and giving "yes/no" answers to questions that aren't "yes/no" questions we can serve our own interests. With everyone using the term, people will have to accept our claims. Does not follow.

Undefinable, unprofessional, not descriptive, pointless. As is 5th gen talk. Please accept that. Princeofdelft (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

One more point, I see above the challenge to show that a 5th generation plane isn't "far more technologically advanced". Well, the latest planes pretty much ought to be. Axiomatically. It's also demonstrable that the "Eurodeltas" represent an notable advancement over say an F-14 in terms of "advancement" but those are grudgingly given a "4+.... maaaaybe" by the same people that harp incessantly on about the F-35. This is intolerable! This just proves that these definitions, if they are EVER really useful, can only be assigned in a historical context! Saying the latest AND most expensive aeroplanes are more advanced is practically a truism, and whether the difference is "big enough" or not will always be totally subjective. It's fandom dressed as fact I'm afraid and it's not useful here. Princeofdelft (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

There are no fifth generation jet fighters. There are no plans to give the F-22 Raptor full sensor fusion. All the IR gear on the F-22 does is give the pilot a missile launch warning. That's no different than a fourth generation jet fighter. Perhaps someday the F-35 will be complete and the United States will then have the software for a fifth generation fighter than can then be quietly applied to the F-22.

Ref: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/12/lockheed-cross-breeding-raptors-joint-strike-fighters/ Hcobb (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of how well defended you may feel your opinion is the fact remains that every major source of information that this section of the encyclopedia is compiled of both acknowledges and uses the term "5th gen". One could easily argue that the terms "supercruise", "supermaneuverability", "situational awareness", "LPI" (the list is extensive) are all marketing terms and aren't encyclopedic; yet how many of those terms have their own separate articles? The fact is that there has been a clear shift in fighter design that originated with the F-22, was continued with the F-35 and PAK FA, and is clearly outlined in the design programs in China, India, Russia and that is: all new designs are centered around stealth. Even if it is revealed later that putting such a large emphasis on the RCS of the design was incorrect there will indeed have been a "generation" of fighters that focused primarily on stealth. Avoiding the term "generation" because you feel an aircraft might be categorized undeservingly is always simply going to be an opinion and something far more solid needs to be presented if you wish to alter how the information in grouped.

(and in case you need the blunt version) The F-35 is edgy-lookin', the F-22 and PAK FA are edgy-lookin', China and India are making edgy-lookin' planes, all the new planes planned are edgy-lookin', and half of Europe is waiting to buy an edgy-lookin' plane. The human brain is naturally going to group the edgy-lookin' planes together so why are we arguing this? -Nem1yan (talk) 05:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Your analogy is, true to form, incorrect. Supermanoeuvrable alone does indeed belong with "5th gen" because it is woolly. This thing "supercruise" does sound pretty dumb, and it IS used as a buzzword, but it's got a definition from what I can tell, ok OK, and it is a "feature" that is, something one is able to do... specifically. I would still prefer a simple description of performance in one or two sentences, personally but it isn't as bad in my view. Situational awareness is more descriptive... but yeah again it is used as a buzzword. Make no mistake, those terms are risky too in a way (in my considered view) more to the point they aren't really needed anyway. The 5th gen term is a far bigger generalisation though. It is also not a description of a feature, or set of features only, but a statement that this is not only the way things are, but the natural way they must necessarily be if one wants to "get it right". Note also that people are liable to copy the ideas of the world's only super-power based exactly on the arguments, of a sort, that you have put forward. Military technology, like your MiG-25 as a good example, has often been predicated on a threat that never materialises, and "fashions" do exist in engineering. See a few lines down for more on this, cos YES you CAN call them the "edgy planes" if you like. THAT would not be loaded, or imply some inherent, across the board, unchallengable superiority.

Avoiding terms couched in the "generations" parlance, isn't "an opinion" it is the EXCLUSION of opinion. The facts about the plane are described perfectly well, WITHOUT this term. The term is loaded, and by nature SUBJECTIVE.

This is also not about "how well I think" I am arguing. This seems almost like an attempt to suggest that I am somehow alone in this, which is not true, but which isn't an argument anyway, and an attempt to say that:

---No matter what is intellectually valid, if politicians say it, we have to as well---.

That's quite frankly insane! People argue all the time that communism and capitalism aren't opposites, but listening to politics on the radio between 1945 and 1990 or so would certainly make you think so. If you actually wanted to write objectively, and factually about them however, you would not bias yourself in that direction just cos that's how people were talking.

I find the blunt version a little patronising really. I know we have to assume good faith and stuff but reaaally? Surely, an encyclopaedia is supposed to look BEYOND how "edgy looking" an aeroplane is, and look BEYOND the jargon popular right now. If you would like to say they belong to the class of "edgy looking planes" you are welcome as well..., because THAT is a fact.. and that history will acknowledge THAT is probably OK to assume, but a loaded term that suggests (and routinely gets used to suggest) that all that went before is totally outdated and useless, is not at ALL the same as that, and represents a degradation of the quality of the article, to which, moreover, it can't be shown to contribute.

Your statements might apply to a NEWSPAPER which will be in the bin tomorrow, but even while this article can always be amended later, it should be treated like a factual work. It looks to me as if:

• I say a demonstrably unhelpful term that adds little or nothing shouldn't be used because it lacks intellectual validity and is a kind of weasly word, and YOU say that because a lot of people use it, it HAS to be used. You also say that if one can find ten (or however many) errors of the same kind, this one is also OK. That one is so common that ethicists call it the Naturalistic Fallacy. "IS therefore ought to be".

• I say that the cutting edge seems to tend towards certain features, but the implication that the decisions made are right, and represent a quantum-leap forward as it were, are wrong because technology evolves and doesn't leap, and can only be judged after the fact. You say that because they all look angular they belong in a class, and I say, yeah, but then it ought to be called the class of angular planes, not the class of newbetterkewl planes, cos that has downsides, but no up side. It doesn't help, can easily be done without, and is clearly contentious, so the onus is on the other mob to show compellingly why it is needed.

I don't see that it's commonness in articles, to refer to a certain trend, in an environment where space on the page costs money, or where the trend is being referred to as a current phenomenon (which you rightly point to as being a phenomenon that is going on) has anything to say about the way the article that actually DESCRIBES the nature of a PARTICULAR aircraft is worded anyway. They don't do the same job in any case.

I really have to take my hat off to Lockheed-Martin. The facts have not stood in the way of their marketing penetrating even wikipedia, because of a bunch of buzzwords, and their solemn faith in the power of something appearing true because everyone is saying it. As User:Hcobb says, the plane doesn't fit the definition fielded anyway. That at least can be accepted, surely? If 5th generation is this, and F-35 or F-22, isn't actually it, then yeah why ARE we discussing this? Princeofdelft (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've got a one-liner for you then.

Fifth generation jet fighters have the combination of low observable features, sensors, networks, computers and performance to maintain situational awareness and kill ratio dominance over other aircraft and air defenses.

Hcobb (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hcobb according to that definition why wouldnt the F-22 be 5th gen?? And honestly we are having two separate arguments here; one about what constitutes 5th gen and the other about whether or not the term should be used at all. I think I place less emphasis on the performance of the aircraft when grouping them. As in a 5th gen fighter may perform on a lower level but is still grouped as 5th gen because of certain elements. I suppose the PAK FA and F-22 are more like PS3's and Xbox360's while the F-35 is like a Wii (just stick with me on this one, cause I know this sounds childish). The Wii is grouped with the other two even though the graphics are more like the previous generation of game consoles. While I agree that the term "5th gen" isnt ultimately necessary I feel that it is relevant due to its frequent use (even among reliable sources). So I guess that is another area of disagreement. Ultimately I dont agree with Lockheed or the US government's definition of fighter generations but I agreed with the aircraft that they would consider 5th gen so I didnt complain. For instance: In case no one else noticed the US definition for gen 4.5 aircraft only includes US fighters. No other nations had AESA radars at that point so only the F-15 16 and 18 qualified. I believe this definition was made because it was to be presented solely to US congress, and it wasnt intended to belittle foreign designs. Nonetheless the term was put into effect here and I believe that is what started the arguments over the use of grouping fighters by generations. While I feel that generations are an effective way of grouping designs I feel that the term needs to be reworked for 4.5 and 5th gen fighters, and it needs to be clearly explained that the terms arent directly related to aircraft performance. -Nem1yan (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's apply another LockMart Trademark.

http://www.trademarkia.com/first-look-first-shot-first-kill-77739047.html On Monday, May 18, 2009, a U.S. federal trademark registration was filed for FIRST LOOK FIRST SHOT FIRST KILL.

AESA radars give a big range boost over PD radars while allowing for LPI modes. So a 4.5th generation fighter against a 4th generation fighter means that the 4.5th spots and engages the enemy first. Add in LO also and you've got a 5th generation fighter. The 4.5th and 5th generation fighters are both using AESA LPIs and assuming neither gets a radar alert the 5th gen will spot the 4.5th gen first, simply by virtue of RCS. So you can see there are two generation steps here.

If you run the numbers for the Russian claims as to their AESA radar then the F-35 is spotted just outside sidewinder range while the F-22 can close to within sidewinder range. Which means that the F-35 has no special need to carry the Sidewinder internally. The open question is if the F-22 can close to within IR missile range of a target that has SAIRST (F-35 and PAK-FA, but not the F-22 to date). Hcobb (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The F-35 is described by LM and the USAF as a "5th Generation Fighter" simply because Congress and the taxpayers dont want to spend $90+ Million on a 4th generation fighter. In other worlds, they have to manipulate the truth in order to acheive their goals. If LN and the USAF wanted to call the F-35 a 6th generation aircraft they could and would for marketing reasons. (Why they both havent done this is a enigma.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.162.156 (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

@Hcobb "The open question is if the F-22 can close to within IR missile range of a target that has SAIRST (F-35 and PAK-FA, but not the F-22 to date)." If you are asking whether or not the F-22 can be tracked at shorter ranges due to it's IR signature then you probably should ask whether or not any plane can be tracked at that range due to its IR signature. If the F-22 is designed to take the first shot from the farthest distance away then why would it attempt to enter into the only area in which it has a relative disadvantage? Honestly I dont see your point.

@67.172.162.156 The USAF (or any other AF for that matter) isn't going to buy a fighter that doesnt perform ">_." Honestly this discussion is becoming simply a matter of patriotism and favoritism. LM isn't going to be awarded billion dollar contracts just because they claim an aircraft is "_th gen". They are selling a weapon, not a video game, and a military isnt going to make such a large purchase and commitment without a solid reason. Lockheed isnt the only company marketing it's fighter after all. Sukhoi, Eurofighter, Dassault, and Boeing are all trying to sell fighters and are all trying to make their fighter appear most capable; there is absolutely no reason to single out Lockheed as if they are the only company that is engaging in marketing practices. -Nem1yan (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

LM is not just engaged in "marketing practices", they are engaged with wholesale fraud. DoD documents on Wikileaks clearly states that the F-35 severly underperforms. Underperforms is the magic word. SecDef has fined LM several times due to issues with the plane. The project has been constantly delayed, over 5 years. The fly away costs have more than doubled ($130+ Million) to cost almost as much as an F-22 ($150 Million). The delays have also lead the USMC to question the purchase of the aircraft entirely. Other nations have threatened to pull out of development. The F-35, just like its larger cousin, are looking to be nothing more than White Elefants. And yes, the US Govt has a history of purchasing aircraft that do not perform nearly as well as promised, the OV-22 Osprey is the current example. The max load is so low that only a single 7.62 is fitted for defense and has lead the USMC to restrict the aircraft to flying in "friendly" areas of Afganistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.162.156 (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There have been delays but 5 years behind schedule would mean that the plane would've entered service in 2009... which was never a deadline. Also I'd wouldnt be surprised to see that half of your un-named "wikileaks" information actually comes from AusAir. Also recent figures put the jet at around $100 million. Ultimately everything you said has either been proven wrong or is an unproven opinion. Also your argument doesnt do anything to improve the page so it really needs to be taken elsewhere. And honestly if the F-35 was that expensive and performed as you said then why arent all the European nations pulling out and buying Eurofighters and Rafales?? -Nem1yan (talk)

The actual concerns about performance are with the JSF program and not the F-35 itself.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4559411&c=AME&s=AIR Across the U.S. military, "there are too many programs that resemble the Joint Strike Fighter in terms of poor performance," Carter said during a March 29 National Aeronautics Association luncheon in Arlington, Va.

Once the software is complete (sometime after the first F-35s enter service), the F-35 will finally be the world's first fifth generation jet fighter and the software will (along with new CPUs) be backported to the F-22 to get it up to 5th gen. Hcobb (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Everyone that accepts the term "5th" has a completely different definition of it. Maybe this discussion should be put off until sometime in 2011. -Nem1yan (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no true set of standards on what defines a 4.5 and a 5.0 generation fighter. Until this is defined in stone, there will be arguments for and against F-35, or any aircraft currently in development, being placed in the 5.0 generation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.162.156 (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Affordable Fifth Generation Jet Fighter

Doesn't everybody see the phrase "Affordable Fifth Generation Jet Fighter" as an oxymoron?

The fifth generation marketing term has gathered lots of negative connotations over the past decade or two, largely thanks to LockMart. If we remove that label from this article it will be to airbrush away those connotations from the F-35. Hcobb (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

At its current price describing the F-35 as "affordable" in any context is the worst form of marketing and as Dilbert asked "what is the difference between marketing and lying?" Our job here on Wikipedia is to cut away the marketing and stick to the encyclopedic facts as they are known. My recommendation would be to avoid things like "The F-35 is an affordable fifth generation fighter" and use language more like "Lockheed Martin is offering the F-35 to foreign governments using marketing terms such as "an affordable fifth generation fighter"" - Ahunt (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Google and you'll see that the term used is "relatively affordable". I suppose the difference between "relatively affordable" and actually "affordable" is the same as the difference between "peace process" and "peace". Hcobb (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Affordable ? the Netherlands are reported to be shocked at the price tag of $120 million each. A 20 percent increase over the last year. [5] --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I certainly think it would improve the article to take this marketing-oriented language and restrict it to History or Criticism related sections of the article. The intention of the program was to create an affordable 5th gen fighter, and that deserves mention, but at the moment this is not an achieved goal of the program (even if it remains a stated goal). If anything, a great family of aircraft have been overshadowed by what is now a poster child of runaway weapons systems procurement programs in the US. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

lessons learned memo

http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/305218--washington-used-aggressive-sales-pitch-to-sell-f-35-fighter-memos-reveal After the victory in Norway, U.S. officials compiled a “lessons learned” memo offering suggestions for tactics that could be applied in future sales, including:

• The “active involvement” of the local U.S. embassy, including the ambassador.
• Co-ordinating the sales strategy with Lockheed Martin to best promote the fighter, including ideas to work with the media.
• Creating “opportunities” to talk up the aircraft. These included luncheons hosted by the ambassador for people of influence, such as retired military staff and think-tank experts. “This enabled our host nation advocates to actively contribute to the public dialogue,” the note says.

Goes here or in international article? Hcobb (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

International article -Nem1yan (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Difficult to say... Just seems like marketing shmutz, albeit by a government. I would leave it out for the moment, but include the source material here. Hiberniantears (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added a short couple of sentences from this ref into the Norway section at Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement. - Ahunt (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Cyber attack jammer

I'm just making an example here, as I have no ref to this detail.

The F-35 is flying along when it detects a SAM radar of a known type. The F-35 replies with a radar pulse that either causes a buffer overflow or exploits an intentional backdoor (computing) that the Russians or Americans inserted into their exported gear. The target radar crashes or enters a training mode. The end result is that it's trivial to be invisible to a radar that is shut off. Hcobb (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit war with Jim Sweeney over CODing the F135

My vote is to keep the C-2/F135 issue in the article until the problem is actually solved. It shows the snafus the program is encountering right now and so gives a snapshot to the public as to what the actual status is. Hcobb (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Having read the ref in its entirety, the Navy Times and some very senior people quoted there seem to think this is a serious issue, so on the strength of that I think it should be retained. - Ahunt (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The engine itself is not the problem its the engine in its travel container on its trailer. [6] The USN and USMC are NOT that worried or it would have been all over the news and not just a one day news item. A quote from the link above Among the options under study, she said, are "developing a low-profile engine transport system that would fit in the back of Navy and Marine aircraft. Remember this is an encyclopedia and we do not need to be adding every news item published WP:not news. However if the majority disagree I am happy that its readded or maybe to the engine or the C2 articles. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This stuff belongs on the engine article instead here. I don't think this matter that much to the F-35 until the Navy and Marines start doing sea trials and other longer term testing off ships. That's when it will really start affecting things, if not remedied beforehand. -fnlayson (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

New price tag

According to an article by AFP, released on Thursday January 13th 2011, http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110113/pl_afp/usmilitaryaerospacef35_20110113153609 the total cost of the program is $382 Billion USD for 2443 aircraft. That comes out to be $156,265,125 per airframe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.162.156 (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That figure includes additional development and procurement costs. $92 million is the expected average cost of each plane once it begins rolling off the assembly line. The A version will be slightly less, and the B version considerably more.

Next Generation Jammer

Can we have sone views on the Next Generation Jammer section it seem to have little or nothing to do with the F-35.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the NGJ is going to be carried primarily by the JSF, replacing the role of the remaining EA-8G aircraft in service. I'm a bit surprised this role the F35 will take hasn't been mentioned anywhere in the article... --Gamerk2 (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Move and link to the NGJ when it grows big enough to justify its own page please. Hcobb (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I read something this week (Wired.com's Danger Room blog, I think) that pointed out that the EA-18G is also being fitted out for the NGJ. This was tied into a few other articles on upgrading the F-15 fleet with new sensors to act in tandem with the F-22 acting as the F-22's "eyes and ears". Hiberniantears (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Remove comparable aircraft list please.

How shall I compare thee?

Are there not other fifth generation fighters? There's a list for that.

Are there not other fighters of the 21st Century? There's a list for that.

Are there not other multirole fighters? There's a list for that.

What then is the use of having another uncited list here? What exactly is being compared betwixt fighter X and fighter Y? Hcobb (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree its just open to abuse at the moment there is no true definition of 5th generation agreed by all. Some aircraft have parts of what's required etc and its mainly only used by companies and politicians in selling the aircraft.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree too, it is more unhelpful than useful. - Ahunt (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree as per Ahunt. MilborneOne (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't useful to most of us because we already have a pretty good idea of the fighter's performance. A short list of relatively comparable aircraft at the bottom of the page isnt unhelpful, and it isnt as if the list is vandalized disproportionately from any other section. I agree that most editors might view it as annoying, but the page is more for the reader. (I still wouldn't necessarily vote to keep it however. -Nem1yan (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This conversation? Again?? Please just get rid of it & let's all spend our time constructively. Mark83 (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Honestly this discussion shouldn't really be here. If we feel that the comparable aircraft section does not belong then we should move the discussion elsewhere and have the lists taken away from all aviation articles. As it stands this is not a special case however, and there is not reason to remove the list from this page in particular. -Nem1yan (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur, this list is no different from countless other lists. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Loadouts

Hello. Does anyone happen to know what the loadouts for the F-35 (in the USAF) will be?
There is a list of the weapons it will use in the specifications section, but no loadouts.
eg. Air-to-air loadout, close air support loadout, strike loadout. I'm not sure exactly, but if anyone knows or even thinks they know please tell me - Heaney555z (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The common loadout seems to be two AMRAAM's and Two JDAMS as the norm, however paralay seems to have a more liberal design setup in one of it's diagrams. Though paralay is often pretty accurate I am not sure how official this design is.

http://paralay.com/f35/3556.jpg -Nem1yan (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Nem1yan are you sure ? So air force's around the world are going to pay 90 to 130 miljoen $ for a aircraft that could only drop 2 bombs and with only have 2 AMRAAM's to protect it self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That's arrangements for internal only weapons. Six underwing pylons can be fitted to carry additional armament for non-stealthy times. Read the Armament section and look at the this briefing (ref. 99) for more info. -fnlayson (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I have seen cockpit displays from lockheed that show four internal missiles instead of two missiles and two bombs. Even for non-stealth fighters it is rather rare for you to see the aircraft armed to the teeth with every weapon it could possible carry. Four AMRAAM's would be suitable for most A2A missions (look at standard loadouts for Rafales and Eurofighters for example) -Nem1yan (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Note how the American armed forces are reluctant to equip their first stealth aircraft with air to air infrared tracking with infrared seeking missiles. (The reason is that the F-35 "Screeching Baby Seal" lacks sufficient stealth to sneak into IR missile range.) Hcobb (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to play the heavy here on all this fun, but WP:NOTBLOG! - Ahunt (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes there are 6 hardpoints under the wings but carrying missile's under the wings would seriously compromise the stealth. Which is a huge problem for this plane since that it is slower than the averege fighter.

This plane flies at a top speed of mach 1.6 while normal fighters this day's flies around mach 2. Sure 4 A2A missile is good for aerial combat role but what about bombing missions ? And do we have anything on the performence of this aircraft like turn rate, climb rate, maneuverability in general the plane looks pretty balky to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest reading the article to answer most of your questions. If you feel that the F-35 is an inadequate fighter then you are entitled to your own opinion but this is not the place to express it. The Talks page is for answering questions and discussing improvements to the article and since continuing this discussion does neither is suggest we end it as Ahunt suggested. -Nem1yan (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If there are no objections I'll spell out what is meant by "2 external ASRAAMs" later today. (Hint: still stealthy.) Hcobb (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Cancellation of GE Engine

Given this information was inserted and removed as a proposal only, I thought it would be worthwhile to note some refs here that can be used when it is final and needs to be reinserted:

• AvWeb
• NY Times

- Ahunt (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Cancellation is not final until the bill gets through all of Congress. This fund/no-fund drama has been covered mainly at General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 previously. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)