Talk:Joint Strike Fighter program/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:F35LightIIlogo.jpg

Image:F35LightIIlogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yak-201 heh

http://vtol.boom.ru/rus/Jak-201/index.html Gnomsovet (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Program value

The value of the program is rumoured to be around $2-300 billion - this should be included in the article. Any luck finding a verifiable estimate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TGCP (talk • contribs) 00:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerns over Performance Additions

Opinion article written by Pierre M Sprey and Winslow T Wheeler in 2009 Jane's Defense Weekly. Pierre M Sprey was heavily involved in the design of the F16/F18 and A10 and his critical views offer a vast amount of experience on the subject area discussed in this section.

http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/WheelerSpreyF35Janes09.pdf

Similar interview by Winslow T Wheeler to the HuffingtonPost in May of 2010.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/winslow-t-wheeler/primer-on-f-35-performanc_b_562621.html

The summary of these two articles reveals areas that should be added to the concerns section including potential massive limitations of the airframe. Its 'multi-role' function was supposed to be a cost saving measure such that all three military branches could save costs by using a single airframe. However, at present only 30% of the parts for any of the three variants are used among the three. In addition, in trying to make a single airframe to accommodate multi-function roles, the apparent result is to create a super hi-tech yet surprisingly mediocre airframe, incapable of even matching performance levels of our current, 'tried and true' airframes developed 40 years ago. In trying to grasp the coveted 'multi-role' status, the F35 has become potentially incapable of out preforming any of the 3 airframes (on paper, because adequate airframe to airframe testing has not been conducted, despite pledges already made to by numbers of the new and yet untested aircraft) that were specifically designed with their mission roles in mind. As a close support air-to-ground airframe, it is not fuel efficient enough to loiter in an area for lengthy periods, it is not well-armored enough to stand up to ground fire, it flys too fast to mark ground targets accurately enough to ensure precession runs, and its armament is significantly reduced due to its being overweight and underpowered. As a air-to-air fighter, its relatively small wings for its weight will most likely result in a lack of maneuverability and thus survivability in air combat, in addition to the limitations on its armament, which must be kept in internal bays.

All these disadvantages for the gain of 'stealth' capabilities not on par with the F22s. And as Wheeler points out, stealthy does not equal 'missile proof', exemplified by our two 'stealthy' F-117s being shot out of the air by the Serbs in 1999 Kosovo. In addition, the future air wars will not always be 'stealth planes' versus non-stealth planes. Russia/India and now China all have their own stealth fighters. If stealth actually does increase air-to-air survivability, as the F35 designers are apparently banking on, then in a stealth plane vs. stealth plane fight, it basically comes down to 4 things, the same 4 things that have always determined the winners and losers in air warfare: speed, maneuverability, fuel consumption, and armament capabilities. When you negate all the putative advantages that stealth brings to the table, as the entrance to the stage of other stealth planes does, it is arguable that things don't look so great for a thin-skinned, fuel guzzling, sluggish, and under-munitioned airframe.

Apologies if I have not adhered to posting rules as this is my first time commenting on article content editing. Any advice / discussion on the topic or on the comments posted would be greatly appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter2001 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)