Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is aformer featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, checkthe nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of theAviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists ofopen tasks andtask forces. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article iswritten inAmerican English, which has its own spelling conventions (center,color,defense,realize,traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from othervarieties of English. According to therelevant style guide, this should not be changed withoutbroad consensus.
[[General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon variants#F-16V Viper|F-16V Viper]] The anchor (#F-16V Viper)has been deleted.
The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking thepage history of the target pages, or updating the links.
Remove this template after the problem is fixed |Report an error
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 theNGAD 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)[reply]
WP:NPOV doesn't prohibit a criticism section, it merely says that itmay 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
WP:NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significantviews that have beenpublished 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!01:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Can someone please fix the picture with the info box that says "F-35A weapon bays with two B61 nuclear bombs and 2 AIM-120 AMRAAM"? Those are clearly GBU-31(v)3 test assets not B61s, you can tell from the cylindrical shape of the BLU-109 body and the widening section at the end to meet the diameter of the tailkit. B61s are much smaller and have an ogive shape rather than a cylinder.97.102.238.203 (talk)00:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On 16, November, 2024, someone(maybe Nimbus227) has deleted <South Korea> also known as <Republic of Korea> out from the list of F-35 operators in this document(Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II). In spite that South Korea is operating 39 F-35A in nowadays while their ordering 20 additional F-35A, why did he take South Korea away fom the list of F-35 opeators in this document? Perhaps by his mistake. So with the courtesy, I would like to rquest either an admin or someone to restore this document. South Korea has purchased 40 F-35A. The first South Korean F-35A rolled-out on 29, March in 2018. And approximately 9 months later, on 17, December in 2019, 151st FS(Fighter Squadron) the first South Korean F-35A squadron in ROKAF(Republic of Korea Air Force) entered the oprational stage(IOC).
In nowadays, 39 South Korean F-35A(Block 3F) are being operated by both 151st fighter squadon and 152nd fighter squadron in ROKAF. And South Korea has placed the order for 20 more F-35A. Those 20 additional South Korean F-35A are going to be acquired by Republic of Korea Air Force from 2026. And while their getting 20 more F-35A, South Korea is going to commence operating their own MRO&U(Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul and Upgrade) for 59 South Korean F-35A, from 2027. In nowadays, among 5 stages of maintenance for F-35A, ROKAF carries on the maintenance from Level 1 to Leve 4 for their F-35A. As South Korea being gonna operate their F-35 MRO&U facility in Cheongju AFB(Air Force Base) in which 39 South Korean F-35A are being deployed and operated in nowadays, they will be able to do the Level 5 mainenance(oerhaul) and upgrade of teir own F-35A from 2027.
You can refer to the following documents below. Thank you!
Boramae21 WhileNimbus227 was the only one to edit this article on November 16,the edit was to the Specifications section and had nothing to do with South Korea or any other operators. It seems the information was removed without explanation byFabrice Ram inthis edit on November 21. It looks to have been an accident, but I'll let Fabrice Ram explain the situation before I add it back. -ZLEAT\C18:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
100% my mistake, I wanted to move some "future operators" into "current operators", and somehow f*ed up on South Korea. I will make the change. Thanks for noticing it !Fabrice Ram (talk)21:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless confirmed, we should probably leave such theories out of the article. Maybe we include it if countries take the speculation seriously and cite it to cancel their plans to acquire the F-35, but I'm not aware of that happening as of yet. -ZLEAT\C12:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Canada is looking at cancelling their F35 contract due to the trade war and annexation threats (ref). They may not be the only ones considering this, in protest of some of Trump's recent foreign policy decisions. Anyone currently working on an addition to the article to cover these developments? -\\'cԼF06:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you're assuming I'm American? As they say, never go assuming anything, it makes anass outtau and some guy namedMing. And I think Canada would be nuts to try and brawl it out with the US. They'd lose. Let's be real, they wouldn't even try. They'd try to negotiate to hang on to as much as they can, and after the annexation is complete, they'd say "Thank you very much, eh?" Then go have some poutine and a Canada Dry...
If this were the place to havethat discussion, I'd have quite a lot to say. But alas, this page is for discussing improvements to the article. As for the original question,Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement does briefly cover the matter as of March 2025. I'm not sure if there have been any updates since then. -ZLEAT\C22:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the DAS system (Distributed Aperture System), the F-35 has 360-degree vision. It has 6 infrared cameras around the jet, and the pilot can literally look through the aircraft by seeing the feed in their helmet. Night vision + missile detection = all built-in.Even when it's not in combat, the F-35 acts like a sensor drone. It gathers tons of data — enemy radar locations, troop movements, missile launches — and can share it with other jets, ships, or ground troops. Some countries use it just to fly along and listen in.The F-35B (used by the Royal Navy and US Marines) can land vertically — but not just anywhere. It uses a lift fan + vectoring nozzle combo. In flight, the fan isn’t even connected to the engine by gears — it’s powered by hot exhaust spinning a turbine. That’s mad engineering.
The cockpit is almost like an Xbox setup:
No traditional gauges.
Everything is controlled by a giant touchscreen, voice commands, and a side stick.
The pilot wears a custom-made $400,000 helmet that shows everything: speed, altitude, enemies — even night vision — right on the visor.While the F-35 is super high-tech, it can communicate with older jets like F-15s and F-16s using a special system called Link 16. But here's the twist — it can also use a stealthy data link called MADL (Multifunction Advanced Data Link) to secretly talk to other F-35s without giving away its position.— Precedingunsigned comment added byJTM 2012 (talk •contribs)15:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
i want to add something that competes it to the harrier jump jet here it is: The F-35 Lightning II outclasses the Harrier Jump Jet in nearly every aspect, making it a dominant force in modern aerial combat. Firstly, the F-35 boasts far superior stealth technology, allowing it to evade enemy radar detection and strike first, while the Harrier’s older design offers little to no stealth capabilities. In terms of speed and maneuverability, the F-35 can reach supersonic speeds well beyond the Harrier’s subsonic limits, giving it a significant advantage in both chasing down targets and evading threats. The F-35’s advanced avionics and sensor fusion provide the pilot with unparalleled situational awareness, integrating radar, infrared, and electronic warfare systems into a seamless picture, whereas the Harrier’s older systems lack this level of technological sophistication. Additionally, the F-35 carries a far greater weapons payload with precision-guided missiles, bombs, and a built-in cannon, compared to the Harrier’s more limited armament options. Even though the Harrier is famous for its vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) capabilities, the F-35’s newer variant, the F-35B, incorporates this ability with much greater speed, range, and combat effectiveness. Altogether, the F-35 outperforms the Harrier in speed, stealth, firepower, sensor technology, and versatility, making it clear that in any aerial engagement, the F-35 would thrash a Harrier Jump Jet without breaking a sweat.
Not done: No clear edit defined per the edit request template, no sources offered (WP:RS). Comparisons between aircraft type articles are rarely made, when they are the comparison has been taken from a reliable source. Readers can compare for themselves, a good way to do this is have the two (or more) articles open in separate browser tabs (or even tiled windows with Windows 11) and read the text/numbers.Nimbus(Cumulusnimbusfloats by)19:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the MiG-35 is not compatible with any standardized NATO weapon systems. Second, switching between Eastern and Western fighter aircraft tends to be more of a hassle with regards to logistics and training. This was especially a problem Ukraine faced a few years ago when they needed to replace their dwindling Russian-built MiG-29s with F-16s. There are hundreds more reasons why this isn't a practical option, but perhaps the most obvious is that relations have been almost nonexistent since Russia invaded Ukraine. Not that Russia would be too thrilled to sell weapons to a NATO military. -ZLEAT\C22:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the flyaway cost of the F-35I, the Israeli variant? The flyaway cost of the other variants (35A, 35B, & 35C) are given in the article. So what is the cost in the US for the 35I as it leaves the mfg plant to be sold to Israel?N2e (talk)01:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a cool flex, but it's actually not easy to research this information. For example, your link fails, and only has a sourced result for the F-35A. Besides, its an AI result search, and last I knew, Wikipedia is NOT composed of AI LLM-written stuff.
It's not quite that simple, as Israel does some of the modification work domestically at Nevatim, some of it back at the LockMart assembly lines; it's not really the case that Israel just acquires a completed, ready to go airframe compatible with all their weapons systems. And, Israel doesn't publicize all the changes that make up their flyaway cost the way the U.S. does, so it's unlikely we'll have something suitable for inclusion in the article any time soon. Israel's unit cost for the first order of F-35I's was I believe $125m each, and $112m each in the second order; and I believe the current unit cost is below $100m. This would make sense -- it's unlikely the flyaway cost of the F-35I is greater than 25% increase over the F-35A, and it's likely at worst comparable to that of the F-35C. But my envelope math here isn't sufficient for article inclusion, of course.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!02:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike other variants, the F-35B has no landing hook..Is this to be read as saying that the F-35A (and 35I?) do have have them? I thought that only the C did, but we have no source either way.109.255.211.6 (talk)22:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the F-35A (not sure about the F-35I) does have a tail hook for emergency situations. This isn't uncommon for USAF fighters, as the F-4 (to be fair, this did originate as a Navy fighter), F-15, and F-16 also have them. They generally aren't strong enough to make carrier landings, but do allow the fighters to land at higher-than-normal speeds during an emergency. -ZLEAT\C23:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[7] -- in the image at the top of this page, you can see the paneling for the arresting hook just forward of the engine on the F-35I as well as the english-language text "Danger Arresting Hook".⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!02:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an explanation of the F-35A's tailhook to the Variants section. Unfortunately, I was unable to find any reliable sources discussing the F-35I's tailhook. -ZLEAT\C03:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though to be fair, it is a relatively minor modification of the F-35A, so most sources probably don't consider the presence of a tailhook to be relevant when discussing the F-35I. -ZLEAT\C03:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ZLEA. IP, you're absolutely correct about preferring a reliable, ideally text source. Like ZLEA I could not find anything directly textual, and I wouldn't have even brought up an image source if not for a) being published on what appears to be a RS, and b) clearly saying in visible English lettering "arresting hook" in a way that mitigates the commonWP:SYNTH/WP:OR concerns with imagery interpretation.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!06:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've found pages at www.aerospacetestinginternational.com and theaviationist.com that discuss F-35A emergency arrest testing. Those don't seem like high-grade sources, but I think they might be contextually usable, especially as they quote USAF sources, and this is fairly straightforward info.
As these are installed on most fighters, is it clear why the F-35Bdoesn't have one? Does the liftfan require overlapping real estate that'd make that difficult? Is it less necessary?109.255.211.6 (talk)01:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My best guess is that the VTOL capability negates the need for a hook since the F-35B doesn't have a minimum runway length, but I haven't found any sources discussing the reason it lacks a tailhook. -ZLEAT\C01:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Aviationist can be hit-or-miss but I'd take it in this case. My suspicion about why the F-35B doesn't have one is that likely the lift fan assembly probably is just in the way[8][9]. As you can see from the cutaways, there's not that much space available there not used by the duct, and I'd guess it just eats up too much space and precludes it from being used for something as potentially load-bearing as an arresting hook. And of course it's not necessary for a vertical landing anyway. FWIW for comparison I believe the AV-8B did have one, while the Sea Harriers did not, so STOVL capability alone doesn't necessarily explain it.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!02:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ZLEA: According towp:Due, "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public". The claim that Iran shot down an F-35 jet is supported by credible sources and, as thewp:weight demended, is stated in just one sentence. Why did you deleteedit that is supported by credible sources, includingtimes of israel,economic times,times of india,france 24 andFT,A A and some iranian sourcesIRNA ?GolsaGolsa (talk)15:59, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GolsaGolsa The only source you cited in the original edit wasIslamic Republic News Agency, a state-owned Iranian news agency with a documented history of spreading misinformation and propaganda. I suppose the claims could be re-added if they are receiving significant coverage from reliable sources. Of the sources you listed,WP:TIMESOFISRAEL and Financial Times are the only sources specifically listed inWP:RSP as generally reliable.WP:TIMESOFINDIA is listed as "no consensus" for a variety of reasons, and therefore should be used with caution. The others are not listed in RSP, so here's what I found:
Anadolu Agency wasdiscussed at RSN in 2023, in which the consensus seems to be that its reliability is "unclear or additional considerations apply". I would probably put this one in the same boat as Times of India.
The Economic Times was alsodiscussed at RSN in 2023, in which it was pointed out that it is owned by the same parent company as Times of India and that it probably doesn't meet the quality expected forfeatured articles. Do with that information what you will, as while this isn't a featured article, is it still rated as agood article.
Keep in mind that these claims are highly disputed, and perWP:DUE we should give due weight to all sides of the story.Your edit wasWP:UNDUE as it left out the key detail that Israel has denied the claims. -ZLEAT\C19:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is ratedGA-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
Not done: No clear edit defined per the edit request template, no sources offered (WP:RS). Comparisons between aircraft type articles are rarely made, when they are the comparison has been taken from a reliable source. Readers can compare for themselves, a good way to do this is have the two (or more) articles open in separate browser tabs (or even tiled windows with Windows 11) and read the text/numbers.Nimbus(Cumulusnimbusfloats by)19:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fi.sstatic.net%2fxbYch.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fi.sstatic.net%2fZFhuT.jpg){kind=link}