Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Super Hornets considered amid fears about JSF

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/super-hornets-considered-amid-fears-about-jsf/story-e6frg8yo-1226535732600

Heads up on a decision to be announced shortly. Hcobb (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The ministerial press release is here. According to the snippet of his press conference I heard on the radio and the press release, the idea is to potentially purchase more Super Hornets as an interim measure as the delays to the F-35 program mean that there's a risk of a capability gap developing if the RAAF has to retire its aging F/A-18A/Bs before the F-35s are ready. I'd be betting on at least some of the Super Hornets being retained permanently, however. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

F-35 is not a miniature of F-22~~!!!!!

Because F-35 technology is 80% different from F-22!!!Like radar, plane frame, engine and sensors219.151.154.219 (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what changes to the article you are advocating for here. Could you be a bit more specific? - Ahunt (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That's why many nations want F-22, not F-35, F-35 is 80% different from F-22.222.181.100.80 (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so the article should be changed to indicate what? - Ahunt (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, most of military fans think F-35 is a miniature of F-22125.82.253.96 (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Add a table of planned orders?

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/thomson-reuters/130224/factbox-current-plans-f-35-warplane-orders-us-allies

Reliable enough to put in table format? Hcobb (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks reasonable. - Ahunt (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Very much unreliable still has the UK buying 138 when all they have committed to is 48. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps indicate commitment vs. long term planning? Hcobb (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Or not use it. Where are they even getting these numbers to begin with? We shouuld not start using weasel words to justify dubious numbers. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The Netherlands planned to buy 85 units back in 2004 or so. At a cost of about 50 Million or so each (as projected/promised at that time). Dutch parliament did not increase the purchase budget, so cost overruns resulted in a reduction to 37 units (September). In other words, these numbers seem to be those of the original business plan prior to budget overruns, delays and budget reductions. Odd it was listed as late as 2013. I would suggest removing or at least updating. Arnoutf (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Intro

Given the recent status of the F-35, particularly its rapidly shrinking cost (on track to be cheaper than Eurofighter), the intro could be toned down a bit so that a reader with a mere cursory glance wouldn't walk away from the article thinking the program was a massive boondoggle?

I've removed the outdated material about the program possibly being cancelled from the lead. It survived the US government processes which could have led to this a few years ago, and I haven't seen it raised as a serious possibility for ages. The current theme of concerns seems to be along the lines of "everyone is going to buy F-35s, but they're not very good". Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Corsica? Sardinia

On the map, Corsica belongs/is linked to Italy. Corsica belongs (or at least is linked) to France, not Italy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.54.96 (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Sardinia is colored green and linked to Italy on the map. Corsica is north of Sardinia. - BilCat (talk) 04:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Confirmation of Singapore's plan to buy

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-f-35-fighter-jet-replace-f-16-rsaf-lockheed-11139654

BlueD954 (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits by BEL F-35 Program Office

Recently, an account by the name of BEL F-35 Program Office (talk) has made some edits on this article. Specifically, one major edit with some follow-up edits correcting grammar and formatting. The account has subsequently been blocked from editing, as it seems that the account may be operated by and on behalf of the Belgian F-35 program office, which would indicate a possible conflict of interest and paid Wikipedia editing.

The edit revolves around alleged corruption in the F-35 procurement process, and, in my view, adds a valid and valuable viewpoint to the article that sheds some more light on the counter-allegations. The edit however also removes an, admittedly weak, source on the actual allegations, and changes the structure of the paragraph to mentioning only that the allegations exist, and removing the original coverage.

Personally I would merge the edit made with the existing structure of the paragraph, I've already described my feelings on the edit above, however I think it'd be fair to ask for wider input on this issue considering the severity of the above incident.

Feel free to reply to this post with suggestions or thoughts about what should be done with these edits. Perhaps rolled back entirely?

Jurryaany (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I saw this as it happened and tagged them for COI. I agree with your plan, then edits were okay, but removed some balance. - Ahunt (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

UAE

Shouldn't the UAE be moved to export. As the sale has gone through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.178.2.81 (talk)

Confirmed Purchases

I have removed the note of one aircraft crashed in the UK section (again, as far as I know you dont normally purchase a crashed aircraft. So it really needs a reliable source that the UK has bought a crashed aircraft possibly as a training airframe rather than edit war, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

successfully opposed

Not writing "successfully" makes it look like a positive, when this group shot itself on the foot. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It's a "scare quote", which generally isn't permitted. Also, you're straying into political opinion, which really isn't permitted either. Just keep it neutral, and stick to what the neutral sources state. BilCat (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The source states that the group tanked the Gripen, which is what I had witten. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

None that context is in the article so it doesn't make any sense. The use of quotes will just confuse readers as it isn't clear if it is some sort of quotation of someone or just scare quotes meant to be some sort of mysterious political statement. Furthermore, the cited reference does not says that the socialist party "tanked" anything. In French it says:

Cette année, potentiellement en septembre, les citoyens suisses devraient à nouveau se prononcer sur l'achat d'avions de combat. Le Parti socialiste, le Parti écologiste et le Groupe pour une Suisse sans armée (GSsA) lancent le référendum ce mercredi contre l'arrêté de planification qui prévoit d'investir 6 milliards de francs pour acheter de nouveaux jets. Les fronts sont les mêmes qu'en 2014, mais le contexte a changé.

which in English translates as:

This year, potentially in September, Swiss citizens should once again decide on the purchase of combat aircraft. The Socialist Party, the Ecologist Party and the Group for a Switzerland without an Army (GSsA) are launching the referendum on Wednesday against the planning decree which plans to invest 6 billion francs to buy new jets. The fronts are the same as in 2014, but the context has changed.

We don't use weird WP:COLLOQUIALISMs in an encyclopedia. Even to people in many English-speaking countries the word "tanked" is meaningless. I was trying to find more encyclopedia wording, but since the ref really doesn't support any of your additions, perhaps they should just be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It literally says it at the top: "Ils étaient parvenus à couler le Gripen en 2014."

"successfully opposed" does not have the same connotation as "tanked". The Gripen debacle is called a "failure" by the article. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The phrase Ils étaient parvenus à couler le Gripen en 2014 translates as They managed to sink the Gripen in 2014. The French word couler can mean "flow, run, cast, roll, run out, go under, smear or gutter". No translation makes it "tank". Regardless, unless we are using a direct quote, we use encyclopedic language not obscure colloquiums. - Ahunt (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Couler means "sink". In English "tank" is also used. Do you agee to say "sink"? Trigenibinion (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

"Sink" is still a colloquialism or expression, as nothing actually sunk. WP:Encyclopedic style explains: The tone, however, should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate. You have to keep in mind that many people who read these articles do not have English as a first language, so we have to avoid obscure language. If you want to propose better formal wording please do so. - 22:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Switzerland, TPNW, and nuclear sharing

Indeed, the F/A-18 can also carry nuclear weapons and in both cases there could be a secret reason to leave the door open to a potential nuclear sharing, that's why the TPNW notice was originally included.

Now it had been included again because the purchase might be in contradiction with the Parliament's will to sign the TPNW.

Paying for maintenance of a nuclear vector (funding its support) could be a violation of the TPNW, and selling them would not be an option.

Buying the F-35 could mean that either Switzerland will not be able to sign the TPNW until 2070 or they would have to throw away the planes when they do. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not seeing that, it reads like a WP:OR to me. There doesn't seem to be anything in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons that prohibits flying aircraft that could possibly carry nuclear weapons, but don't. If you want to somehow join the dots that Switzerland buying the F-35 will prevent them signing the TPNW then you will need to cite a ref that actually says that. So far the refs you have cited don't mention the F-35 and including this is just pure WP:SYNTHESIS. - Ahunt (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem would not be flying them, but continuing to fund the support of a nuclear vector.Trigenibinion (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons says nothing about an air force flying aircraft that "could" carry nuclear weapons, but don't. It is not hard to guess why, either, because pretty much any aircraft can potentially carry nuclear weapons, in fact pretty much any truck could too. Are you going to ban trucks in Switzerland as part of the treaty? As far as I can see this is all just wild supposition and WP:OR on your part. I am not seeing any ref that says Switzerland cannot buy F-35s, operate them without being armed with nuclear weapons and still sign and fully comply with the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons if they want to. Unless you can find a ref that says that, I think we are done here. - Ahunt (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

A signatory cannot assist anyone else in prohibited activities. What this means depends on the interpretation of "weapon" and "facilities". Funding development via support payments would be assisting. Trigenibinion (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that says Switzerland cannot buy F-35s? Otherwise this is into WP:DEADHORSE. - Ahunt (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not saying they cannot buy F-35. I am saying this could bring trouble later. Trigenibinion (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Then cite a reliable published source that actually says that. Otherwise it's OR, and doesn't belong in the article. It's getting close to not belonging on a talk page either. BilCat (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, unless you can provide some actual references that back up your claims we are done here and can close this thread out as unsourced personal opinion. - Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

and I think this discussion has been made completely moot, as today Switzerland formally signed a purchase contract to buy 36 F-35As, see this official announcement. - Ahunt (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

A related but non-Swiss issue if that I don't see how a NATO country would be able to sign the TPNW. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry that is off-topic, see WP:NOTFORUM. - Ahunt (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

"Democracy funeral" in Switzerland

This was reverted alleging it is not notable. Attendance does not make something notable in Switzerland, it is covered by mainstream media there. The affair is kind of a constitutional crisis. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as "it is covered by mainstream media there" goes, see WP:NEWSPAPER, which says most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Just because the media covers something does not make it worth adding to a Wikipedia article.

If it is a constitutional crisis then you need a ref that says that, as the one you cited doesn't and in fact all refs I have seen say the purchase is entirely "legal". As it stands a protest where 50 people showed up is not notable, in fact it probably proves that most Swiss don't object to the purchase. With a population of 8,636,896 (2020) a protest of only 50 people shows that 0.000578912% of the population objected enough to attend the protest. I think if there is any story here about the protest it would be that 99.9994211% of the population didn't show up for the protest. Regardless, these days you can get a small group to protest anything. It isn't notable that there was a tiny protest unless it leads to something WP:LASTING.

Keep in mind that we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, we are here to objectively report notable facts in the story of the Swiss procurement of the F-35. If anything the section will probably be cut down over time to a sentence or two that indicates that, while there was some debate in the country, ultimately the government bought 36 of them anyway.

Your contributions to this article seem to indicate that you have a conflict of interest here, since your edits are all seeming to provide as much support as possible to the opposition to this purchase. Wikipedia is not the place to try to advance causes or do WP:ADVOCACY. Here we are write from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view on issues and just report facts. If you want to oppose this purchase then you would be better off attending protests or starting a blog or something similar. - Ahunt (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Over 100,000 have signed against the purchase, and your edits seem to show you try to hide anything negative about the F-35. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

You need to read WP:AGF. I am just here to write a Wikipedia article. Being a Canadian I don't have any personal interest in whether the Swiss buy a fighter from the US or not. Our series of articles on the F-35 say lots of negative things about the aircraft, as there is lots to criticize about it.

As for your statement that 100,000 have signed against the purchase, in fact the article does currently say In August 2022, they registered the initiative, with 120,000 people having signed in less than a year (with 100,000 required). So it seems that is the full extent of the opposition to the purchase, given a year to sign a petition. 120,000 people is 1.389388% of the Swiss population, or to put it another way 98.610612% of the Swiss population did not oppose the purchase enough to sign a petition.

Anyway you seem to have made your case here for including the 50-person protest. Obviously I think it would be WP:UNDUE to include it, but let's see if anyone else is persuaded by your argument and indicates here that they think it should be included. - Ahunt (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

That only 100,000 people signed the petition says nothing about how many are against, that is a normal closing number. The fighter jet budget was approved with barely more than 50% in favour. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Given that Canada is about to purchase F-35's, you might have an interest that it is shown in a good light elsewhere. And some Canadian companies are subcontractors.Trigenibinion (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I think you need to stop trying to cast me as some sort of salesman for Lockheed-Martin or something. You are getting beyond WP:AGF now and into WP:NPA here. Not everyone who disagrees with you using Wikipedia to advocate against the Swiss government buying a new fighter is working for L-M. Check my edit history and you will see I write a lot about homebuilt aircraft, ultralights, free software and especially old, out-of-production sailboats. I have been retired since 2007 and don't work for anyone. My aim here is to make sure Wikipedia is accurate, well sourced and not being used by people with an WP:AXE to grind to advocate for their favourite cause.

Regardless you have made your case, such as it is. Let's see if anyone agrees with you that this protest should be included. - Ahunt (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I have seen a militaristic stance in the Aviation Project. It is my attempt to try to reduce the bias. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Corruption section?

There's obviously been a lot of corruption during the export sales of the F-35 as the US hasn't been behaving fairly at various procurement competitions (see examples from the Norwegian bid, the Danish bid, as well pretty much the whole whole article on the Canadian bid). Since there are so many proven examples of corruption I'm wondering if its worth making a whole new section on this? Flyingfishee (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Canada confirmed order in map

Can someone change the Canada to orange on the map? I don't know how. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Failed proposals: Turkey

Turkey had ordered F-35 Fighter Jets, but subsequently cancelled it's orders due to USA opposition. Should is be added to Failed Proposals section? Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

No, since Turkey was one of the initial partners of the program from the start and was subsequently removed from it. It has a dedicated section for the removal from the F-35 program. Alin2808 (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)