Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II

Criticisms Section

The criticisms section is both misleading about industry opinion wrt the F-35 and avoids actual controversies in the F-35's development. This article is mainly about the NGAD program but it also covers many of the issues US Secretary of the Airforce, Frank Kendall, had with the F-35's development process. Performance isn't even mentioned. Instead the issues highlighted revolve around failing to secure the intellectual property around the jet and the "concurrency" approach to procurement which lead to the F-35 going into production during development. This seems like a much better fit for the criticisms section. Humorless Wokescold (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

This whole section should be removed. All it does is literally quote two articles written by the same author, David Axe. Steve7c8 (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:Criticism, "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided...". -Fnlayson (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:CRITICISM is an essay, not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. It only represents the opinions of some Wikipedia editors. Nbauman (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:CRITICISM is based on WP:NPOV#Article structure, which is policy, and needs to followed. BilCat (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks or with the WP:STRUCTURE shortcut. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NPOV doesn't prohibit a criticism section, it merely says that it may result in an unencyclopedic structure. It also says that there are varying views. There are a huge number of WP:RS that have criticized many features of the F-35, so they clearly belong in the entry. I think the clearest way to put them would be in a criticism section. Where would you put them? Nbauman (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• No one said prohibited, just discouraged as stated in WP:Criticism that is quoted ("should be avoided") above. This is because Criticism sections are often magnets for unbalanced coverage. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly. High-profile programs such as this one garner a lot of criticism, and such sections tend to grow exponentially as every other readers tries to add some criticism they saw somewhere, much of it just opinion from professional critics and activists. Genuine and specific criticism should be included where relevant, but not indiscriminately or in an unbalanced way. BilCat (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Would you agree that if there was a lot of criticism in WP:RS of the F-35, the Wikipedia entry should reflect that? Nbauman (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  In the article, yes; in a dedicated criticism section, no. BilCat (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  The September 2023 GAO report https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105341.pdf , which is a WP:RS, cited several critical problems, and many WP:RS reported those problems:

  • Heavy reliance on contractors
  • Inadequate training
  • Lack of technical data
  • Funding prioritization
  • Lack of support equipment
  • Lack of spare parts.

  Where in this entry would (or do) you include those problems?

  In biology, there is a concept known as "emergent properties." You can study the heart, the lungs, the circulation, and the immune system as separate  entities, but when you put them all together, they have properties that aren't apparent when you study them as individual organs -- for example, heart failure. That happens in Wikipedia articles as well. You can examine the individual problems with the F-35 one at a time, and come up with a solution or justification for each one, one at a time, but when you put them all together, you have a different problem -- it's difficult to manage overall. It's like taking a car to a mechanic, who says, the valves are worn, the rings are worn, the brake piston needs replacement, the muffler needs replacement -- individually, you can take care of each one, but when you put them all together you have an old car that isn't worth fixing.

  WP:NPOV says that a Criticism section may be appropriate, or may not be. When you have "emergent properties" -- when the whole adds up to more than the individual parts -- a Criticism section is appropriate. Nbauman (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  All of these problems are outgrowths of the concurrency development process and failure to acquire IP rights for the technology behind the F-35 which I explicitly mentioned in my first comment. It's why the NGAD program is taking the approach it is. To quote Sec Kendall, "We’re not going to do that with NGAD. We’re gonna make sure that the government has ownership of the intellectual property it needs. We’re gonna make sure we’re also making sure we have modular designs with open systems so that going forward, we can bring new suppliers in." From the article I linked earlier. Humorless Wokescold (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

This article entirely deserves a criticism and a controversy section. In Canada alone, this procurement has collapsed governments. All I see in the above talk pages is article bias, and biased Wiki "editors".Andwats (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Are congressional hearings primary sources?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLM72zT2fQo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:40 (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

All-weather?

Aren't most planes weatherproof? As a layman, the inclusion of "all-weather" in the lede is puzzling, especially as there's no other mention of "weather" in the article and no link for context. I gather from a search of the Talk archives that the plane has been accused of being vulnerable to lightning (ironic or what?), and this could be in response to that accusation? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not what the term means. It does not have anything to do with weatherproofing. "All-weather" is a historical concept from the age of jet fighters prior to the Fourth-generation fighter, and refers to whether they have avionics capabilities to fly and perform their missions in a foul-weather environment (meaning, non-visual meteorological conditions). As functionally all modern combat aircraft in service these days have at least basic all-weather capability by virtue of their radar and instrument flight avionics, the term is essentially archaic and no longer used. The F-35's alleged lightning vulnerability is unrelated. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

If the term is obsolete and confusing, how about deleting it? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

As with any fast jet military aircraft, there will be agreed requirements for limits on operational use in various meteorological conditions, e.g. extension of canopy or safe pilot ejection in windspeeds of up to 80 knots, from left side, right side, forward and aft. There may well be some extreme weather conditions in which the aircraft will not be qualified to operate safely. Similarly, there may be limits on pilot habitability in various high temperatures, e.g. "pilot shall be able to operate the aircraft on ground in ambient temperatures of up to 50 degrees Celsius, for up to 30 minutes", etc. So the term "all weather" is a bit meaningless, even for modern fighter jets. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

If it's obsolete, confusing, and meaningless, let's delete it. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

'All-weather' is a 1950s term which really meant 'day or night'. It is not particularly to do with whether it was raining outside. Until then, specialised night fighters, usually twin-engined with two crew and radar, tended to have lower performance than single-seat day fighters without radar like the Sabre or Hawker Hunter. Since then, most fighters, single-seat or two-seat, have been configured as all-weather, with radar and guided weapons. Khamba Tendal (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Lede should be more explicit about the historic nature of the cost/expense

This is the most expensive/costliest weapons program in world history - E.g. The most expensive US defense project ever, The world’s costliest weapons program. I think that should be a clear statement in the lede (if not first paragraph, with the amount). It is in the body of the article, but it is probably one of the most notable fact about the topic. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

These are forecasted costs, haven’t spent nearly $1 trillion yet.

I notice that various IPs have been removing any mention that the F-35 is the most expensive weapons program in history (despite numerous sources, and it being an important notable fact of the topic). Aszx5000 (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Aszx5000 These IP editors possibly work for Lockheed Martin. Might want to put IP protection on this article. Alexysun (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Can we put the cost in the infobox?

I have this vague memory that cost used to be in the infobox. Maybe it's a false memory. Either way though, can we put the cost in the infobox? Alexysun (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The cost parameter was removed from aircraft infoboxes as a result of this discussion in 2021. There was consensus that cost info was not suitable for the infobox.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The word "descends" is used incorrectly.

The sentence could possibly be rewritten? 207.153.55.248 (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

How so? The F-35 production version is a descendant of the X-35 prototype. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

".. has been developed from..."? Only three more words, and no slight ambiguity about operational flight formations. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Why did the infobox picture change

The current one is taken at a rather strange angle and with perspective issues due to the proximity of the camera. It replaced the previous picture of CF-01 flight sciences aircraft, which was a strange choice. Why did the infobox picture go through these changes? It seemed fine before. Steve7c8 (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• This image change took place on 12 July 2024. User:Sappybases switched an F-35A image from the body of the article with the F-35C image without any reason(s) in the edit summaries. Both images seem OK to me. See File:CF-1 flight test.jpg (F-35C) and File:Testflyging av første norske F-35 -1 (cropped).jpg (F-35A). -Fnlayson (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  I propose changing the infobox picture back to File:F-35A flight (cropped).jpg, as this appears to conform better with most infobox pictures of fighter aircraft articles. Steve7c8 (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Nickname

Similar to the post I made on the C-17 talk page, the F-35 has been nicknamed "Fat Amy" due to its size and costs.[1] Is it okay to put this in the opening paragraph? TheNomad416 (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that a more reputable source is needed, the F-35 doesn't have a universal nickname like the "Viper" is for the F-16 yet. From personal experience, crews have called the aircraft "Lightning", "Panther", and "Fat Amy" without any one of them being the most common; in fact most of the time it's simply referred to as "F-35". Steve7c8 (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

As a compromise, I've included some of these nicknames in the body, but they're not universal enough to be included in the lede. Steve7c8 (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Lightning isn't a nickname, it's part of the formal name; Panther never took off; Fat Amy is the closest to being universally used. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, "Fat Amy" never took off either, at least not any more than other nicknames mentioned ("Panther", "Battle Penguin", etc.). Certainly there isn't a nickname that's ubiquitous enough to be put in the lede like what the OP was suggesting. Steve7c8 (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

And, thankfully, "Baby Seal" never caught on either. That one was jokingly (I think) promoted by a now-former Wikiuser. BilCat (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)