Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

PoAF/Portugal

I removed the following from the "Potential exports" section of the article:

"Seeking to expand the sphere of influence of the PoAF (Portuguese Air Force) in NATO-integrated missions, the Portuguese CEMFA ('Chefe de Estado-Maior da Força Aérea' - Air Force Head-of-State), Fernando Pereira, has manifested his interest in acquiring the F-35 Lightning II. The idea arose due to the "aging" of the Alpha Jet, who are in service in the PoAF since 1992 for Offensive Air Support missions. Since the F-35 is far more versatile than the F-16 Fighting Falcon, which is currently the main fighter in the PoAF, the Portuguese Government has been studying the chance to integrate the F-35 in its Air Defense Force. By combining the F-16 with the F-35, the Portuguese Air Force would be able to compete with major NATO Air Forces. The first F-35 shipment is to be expected in Portugal in 2025.

My reason for doing so is that a) the CEMFA of Cabo Verde (Fernando Pereira) doesn't have anything to do with the decision of what fighter will replace the F-16 in Portuguese service, b) the reason given (the idea) is complete nonsense — the Alpha Jet is a training aircraft and was only used in the attack role in accordance with NATO practices at the time of the Cold War — and that c) no source was given. -- Get_It (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your reasons for removing this, it doesn't make sense and lacks refs to make any sense out of it. An IP editor reinserted it and I have removed it asking him or her to discuss here. - Ahunt (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

See: http://forumdefesa.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=125133 However the domain for the "Take-Off" magazine is not working at the moment: http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/mags/portugal/portmag.htm Hcobb (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The forum isn't much use as a ref, but if a proper reliable ref can be found and some sense made of it (I assume that the Portuguese would use F-35s for replace the F-16 in the ground attack role and that would take any future pressure off using the AlphaJets in that role again) then the subject can be added in. - Ahunt (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually only noticed this article because someone on that same forum recently called this entry here on Wikipedia "BS". I see that the "Take-Off" article is not online, but if we even use it as a source we have to rewrite the entry. If Portugal acquires the F-35 they will replace all of the F-16 fighters and not only the ones being used by Sqn. 301. The current Alpha-Jet fleet is only being used for advanced training and most guys in the PoAF are pointing for it to be replaced together with the Epsilon fleet by a single aircraft type. My opinion is that without a proper reference clearly mentioning the Alpha-Jet it shouldn't be mentioned on this article. As for the CEMFA that was interviewed, that person was General Luís Evangelista Esteves de Araújo. We never had a CEMFA named Fernando Pereira and who added this entry had probably mistook the Cabo Verde's CEMFA for the Portuguese CEMFA. -- Get_It (talk) 11:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That all seems to make sense, but we still need a ref to cite to add it in. At this stage it seems to be little more than a rumour or proposal, although the text added before gave a hard delivery date! - Ahunt (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The lack of a good reference is exactly why I didn't edit the previous content or add something new now. And even for me to write something on this topic I personally would want more than one source. So far the only thing that we have now is an interview from a General that hasn't said anything publicly about the subject in two years who serves in a PoAF that has operated US-made fighter aircraft for the last 57 years or so. The only other sources that mention any possible F-35 purchase by Portugal is Lockheed Martin's briefings and those are usually hoping for the best. I doubt that we will see any accurate and reliable information about the F-16 replacement until 2020 or 2025. As for Portuguese participation in the program I doubt that we will see anything and we have to be careful to not confuse participation in the F-35 development with the current participation that already exists with Lockheed and the USAF on the F-16's M5 program, the P-3 upgrade program, which also includes UAV development, and the other usual subcontracting of Portuguese companies (mainly Critical Software). -- Get_It (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree! - Ahunt (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Five stages of F-35 procurement

Looking back over the Aussie material that was stripped out of the F-35 article before this article was split off I've been struck by exactly how closely it matches to the current Canadian process.

So can we reorg this article to match the Kübler-Ross model and simply note how far along each country is? Hcobb (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am a counselor, so the reference to Kübler-Ross is amusing!! How about finding that material and re-adding it back into this article, if there are refs for it? - Ahunt (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, as I read it the countries split up like this:

• Canada has just left "Denial" and now admits that they will need jet fighters and is now at "Bargaining" trying to hold a competition for fighters.
• Israel is at "Depression" as they accept that they won't get the fighters in time for the big stealth attack.
• Most other countries are at "Anger".
• The USN seems to be the only group that's reached "Acceptance".

Hcobb (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You left out the Marines, who may not get much of anything. - Ahunt (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Table please!

With this section split off from the main article we really need a table to show the current consensus reality about each country.

Here, I'll start with one row.

Israel 20 2016 95

Hcobb (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That is probably not a bad idea for high up in the article near the top as a summary. What is the "95" parameter? - Ahunt (talk) 10:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ninety Five for 20 from first batch plus 75 if all options are exercised. Hcobb (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so you have country/orders/delivery date/total including options ? - Ahunt (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Revising my table idea a bit.

Israel F-35A 20 2016

F-35I 75 ?

Okay? Hcobb (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good. Should add refs to the table, which should be easy as they are in the text already in most cases. - Ahunt (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we start with a note under the USA section showing the number planned for each branch? Hcobb (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like someone has created your requested table, but put it into Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. I think it shold be in this article instead and will start a discussion over at Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II proposing just that. - Ahunt (talk) 13:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

allheadlinenews.com

The allheadlinenews.com site is used for a ref all over wikistan, but this usage seems a little ORish on their part:

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7020162912?Syria, Iran Object To $2.75 Billion U.S.-Israel Defense Deal Just a day after the United States signed a $2.75 billion deal to sell 20 F-35 fighter jets to Israel, Syria opposed the move and said that the defense deal will threaten security in the region. ... The move has also upset Iran and it can further increase tensions, which are already at its high, following an announcement from the U.S. about a major arms sale to Saudi Arabia in recent past.

The issue isn't about what the SFM said, but rather the explicit tie in to the F-35 itself. Hcobb (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The quotes in the article look reliable enough, but I am not sure adding them to what you have already put into the article would explain much more than is already there. - Ahunt (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I found another source with the same interpretation of the FM's speech that I wanted. Once some meme floats near the Lamestream it tends to get sucked in, so it's just a matter of waiting for the fringe to lead the way. Hcobb (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

So countries with past and present tensions with Israel object to arms sales to that country? Shocker. Mark83 (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Add quote to article?

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=195891 “The fact that Iran and other countries will know that our planes can fly into their territory without them even knowing about it is a powerful message in of itself,” he has been known to say.

Note that even the article author doesn't pin this down as an exact quote. Hcobb (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Then I would add it as a general and attributed statement and not as an actual quote. - Ahunt (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ottawa Citizen Series on the F-35

The Ottawa Citizen has published a three part series on the F-35 procurement:

• Part One - Maintenance tab may send cost of new fighter soaring to $21B
• Part Two - Selling Canada on the need for fighters
• Part Three - Can the F-35 win a charm offensive?

- Ahunt (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Gates to push Baby Seal on Japanese

And we know what suckers the Japanese are for "chibi" cute and hapless critters.

http://military.globaltimes.cn/china/2011-01/612041.html "The Japanese government is considering the purchase of its next generation of fighter aircraft. That would give Japan the opportunity to have a fifth-generation capability, if they bought the right airplane," Japan's Kyodo News Agency quot-ed Gates as saying. "I might have a few suggestions for it."

My vote is to hold off for a few days and see how the locals respond this time. BTW: He has multiple suggestions for 5th gen aircraft? "Well gosh, if you don't want the F-35 we can always sell you this other fighter..." Hcobb (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't take any information from that propaganda arm (Global Times) of the Chinese government to be worth anything less than toilet paper.

Well alright, maybe just enough as coincidentally I'm running out of toilet paper. Fellytone (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Turkey problems

http://www.todayszaman.com/news-233254-problems-persist-with-the-us-on-fighter-planes.html Turkey is expected to pay nearly $11 billion for 100 F-35 fighter jets. Citing rising costs in production, the consortium is asking Turkey for an additional $4 billion for the F-35s, but Turkey is reluctant to pay this amount. As some countries have withdrawn from the project, Turkey will reportedly have to pay up to $25 billion for the project.

RS? Hcobb (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

See wp:not news. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I have read the article and I do think it should be included as it shows how the program and the procurement is possibly starting to come unraveled. I realize that much of what we have in this article is "news" in that it may become out-of-date as events unfold, but I would personally rather catalog events in the story as they occur and then cut the text back later when the outcome is clearer, rather than have to scramble back through the news media archives trying to find the history on a story when big changes in the program occur. It seems to me that while it is possible that the F-35 will be produced and delivered in the numbers currently planned to the countries that have indicted they want to order it and built at the plants that are participating, that that is a remote outcome. It is is much more likely that rising costs will cause some countries to drop out, which will reduce the numbers to be produced and will in turn raise unit costs again, causing other countries to drop out. A good example is Canada, which has indicated an intention to buy 65 F-35s. The problem is that that number is the absolute bare minimum number of fighters the nation needs for defence and the cost of those is a huge national issue. If the price goes up then the nation will not be able to buy enough to meet minimum operational needs and will have to either buy something cheaper, or supplement them with another type or something else. Then there is the factor of the opposition parties promising to drop the sole-source contract and hold a competition instead. Just think what would need to be covered here if the USA announces later this year than they will cut their orders in half or even by a quarter. It would make no sense for countries like Turkey and Canada to procure the few aircraft that they could still afford. In Canada's case they would end up with one squadron or less at the resulting prices. All of this adds up to a high degree of uncertainty as to what information is important at this early stage in the program. My inclination is to err on the side of "too much" text and the associated references and even split the national controversies into newer smaller articles, such as Canadian Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement or Turkish Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement rather than have too little background here on what could be a big and very complex story if this whole program falls apart, or just if a major player drops out and the zipper effect of rising prices and more drop-outs occurs. - Ahunt (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

And yet more at http://www.eurasianet.org/node/62767 if you like. Hcobb (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

What's Screeching Baby Seal in Hebrew?

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142570

Once it does have a new name it ought to be mentioned here, but the contest for the name seems beneath our radar. Hcobb (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Norway fixer moved to Canada

http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/3877 Kevin Johnson, former Deputy Chief of Mission at the US Embassy in Oslo, was named US Consul General to Toronto in August 2009—nine months after Norway announced it would buy a fleet of the Lockheed Martin-made stealth bombers. His name appears on several classified American cables released through Wikileaks last year.

And yet no proof is offered that he is actually behind the sales push in Canada. Hcobb (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

South Korea expanded into a full section?

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/03/113_82613.html Some media outlets went as far as describing the initial production lot of the F-35 offered to Seoul as “empty metal cases” that will likely come with Block 0.5 software and at a price tag nearly twice the original forecast.

Time to move South Korea into their own heading? Hcobb (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"Some media outlets" seems a bit vague to me. However this is still somewhat significant since Boeing seems to be trying to beat Lockheed at every turn. -Nem1yan (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Canadian parliamentary budget officer

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/stealth-fighter-costs-under-parliamentary-budget-officers-microscope-117698553.html

Starting to seem a bit down in the weeds to me. Hcobb (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Since the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report will be a politically neutral and peer-reviewed document it will probably prove crucial in the debate over the procurement of this aircraft for Canada and particularly as an issue in the possible spring election. When the report comes out a summary of it should be included in the article. - Ahunt (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Very well, here you go:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/03/10/pol-pbo-page-fighterjet.html The total cost of the Conservative government's plan to purchase 65 F-35 fighter jets over 30 years is close to $29.3 billion — billions more than previously estimated, according to Parliament's budget watchdog.

Have a day. Hcobb (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I just finished reading the CBC article, I will incorporate it into this article. - Ahunt (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Page is back again today.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110323/stealth-fighter-costs-110323/

Hcobb (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a useful ref, thanks for finding it. I have incorporated it into the article. - Ahunt (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Different Article for Canadian Procurement

I'm wondering if it would be wise for someone to spin-off the Canadian Procurement section to a new article. It is gigantic, and it will only be getting longer as the politicians continue to debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.167.225 (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I would rather simply cut the Canada and Israel portions down a bit, I do agree that something might need to be done sometime in the future however. -Nem1yan (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of detail in the Canadian section and perhaps one day after the procurement is either filled or cancelled I think we will know enough about which information is important and which lead to political dead-ends to be able to reduce it, but that is years off right now. In the meantime I would rather see it split off into a new Canadian Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement article than cut down. We are probably heading into an election soon in Canada and the F-35 is going to be a big issue, generating a lot more coverage and controversy in the mid-term. - Ahunt (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If you must make a new article shouldn't it be entitled CF-18 replacement or something that covers all factors? Therefore the article would remain valid if they switched to Eurofighters or J-20s or whatever. Hcobb (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a good point. It may be well to consider the possible twists in the history as it might proceed and make sure we are prepared for any outcome in terms of the article making logical sense for organization. My thought on that is that as long as we have the current Conservative government the procurement will likely proceed as a sole-sourced untendered contract, as they have a long history of never changing their minds on anything. If we switch governments to any other party then the sole sourced contract will likely not be signed and instead we will have a competition. If the F-35 wins the competition then the Canadian Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement article could continue along until the first deliveries, giving text to the competition. If the F-35 does not win the competition then the article timeline would basically come to an end at the competition and then start a new article on Canadian CF-18 Replacement Program or whatever it will be called, starting from the competition and dovetailing with the Canadian Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement article for timelines. At least that is how I see it working, but I am certainly open to alternatives. - Ahunt (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As of yesterday evening Canada is now gearing up for an election call on Friday, with the election date likely to be 02 May 11. The opposition parties are making the F-35 procurement a centre-piece of the campaign. What this means for this article is a lot more text and refs on the way for the Canadian section. I am intending to let this proposal to split the Canadian section off run a total of seven days for further comment, which is 27 Mar 11, four more days. So if anyone objects speak now! - Ahunt (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, in accordance with WP:SILENCE we have a consensus to split the article. The timing is probably good as the election campaign is in full gear and the F-35 is front and centre. See for example this for the tone. I will carry out the split. Please do add Canadian Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement to your watchlist and come over and participate! - Ahunt (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

JSF Cost Predictions Rattle Foreign Customers

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/03/21/AW_03_21_2011_p27-297530.xml&headline=JSF Cost Predictions Rattle Foreign Customers&prev=10

Do I add this once in the head, or repeat the same issues over and over again for each victim, er potential customer? Hcobb (talk) 08:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Having read the article think there is enough solid content in there that it should be in each applicable section. - Ahunt (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Danish pilots long for stealth

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6109179&c=AIR&s=TOP "They must not be left feeling vulnerable. When operating in the environment that is packed with anti-aircraft and missile systems, it is important to have everything that helps make you more invisible to the enemy."

No sign that this will reflect in government policy of course. Hcobb (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Norway heats up

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2011/04/18/new-debate-looms-over-fighter-jets/

Must be all that global warming. Hcobb (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I read the article, the similarities to the debate being held in Canada is noteworthy! This should probably be included in the Norway section. - Ahunt (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Delaying fighter buy will save cash

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/delaying-fighter-buy-will-save-cash/story-fn6bqphm-1226044719843

Only a finding rather than a proposal or a directive so I'm iffy on including it. Hcobb (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Japan drops out

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/20/japan-fighter-idUSL4E7GK11120110520

Not quite solid enough yet for me. I suggest taking another look in a few days. Hcobb (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There is enough there to use to add a sentence or so the to the Japan text in the article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Another ref with a tiny bit more:

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110521a2.html

WARNING! It's from May 21st, and so probably after the end of the world. Hcobb (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Is Japan not into the 21st now ?Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Japan is the nation of tomorrow. Always has been and always will be. Hcobb (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Australia's $228 million aircraft

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/20/3222259.htm But he said the cost of the initial 14 planes, at a cost of $3.2 billion or $228 million per aircraft, was a necessary cost to buy early-build units so pilots could be trained on the advanced fighter-bomber.

What is missing is that a big chunk of that $3.2 billion is for...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/kevin-rudd-signs-off-on-purchase-of-14-f-35-joint-strike-fighters/story-e6frg8yo-1225803790418 ... and infrastructure and support required for initial training and testing.

Hcobb (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Israel seems to think it is about to be cancelled

U.S. may scrap F35, set to be Israel's fighter jet of the future - Ahunt (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Already added American Senate scrap to American section. Hcobb (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Building F-35 in Japan

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/03/us-lockheedmartin-japan-idUSTRE7520L520110603

My feeling is to hold on this for a few days until its made clear if this is wingtips for the Japanese market only (a very small contract when compared to the purchase price) or if Japan will export weapon parts to the world. Hcobb (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Italy

Is "The honorable Maurizio Turco" a notable military aviation expert?

http://www.avionews.com/index.php?corpo=see_news_home.php&news_id=1130618&pagina_chiamante=index.php

Hcobb (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

According to Italian general election, 2008 (Lombardy) he is an Italian MP for Lombardy, but his challenge to the F-35 procurement seems to be on constitutional grounds, not aviation or technical. Despite the fractured English in the article I think it is worth including to show the level of opposition to the purchase and the arguments being made. - Ahunt (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Heads up that there's a vote tomorrow on this. If it fails would it be worth covering?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/25/us-italy-politics-f-idUSBRE95O12Q20130625

Hcobb (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Very definitely! - Ahunt (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparently they're taking a six month study break before changing anything, but I haven't found a RS yet.

In the meantime this non-RS offers some amusement value...

https://www.f35.com/global/participation/italy-myths-and-facts

Hcobb (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The "study break" option isn't much of a surprise, as no one wants to actually cancel right now. The L-M damage control is interesting. It can be quoted if need be as long as it is clearly attributed to the source. - Ahunt (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Israel - 7 July 2011 Aviation Week Article

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/awst/2011/07/04/AW_07_04_2011_p22-342412.xml&headline=Israel,%20U.S.%20Strike%20F-35%20Technology%20Deal&next=0 Contains a lot of information previously missing from the Wiki article... The problem is that entering the inf will bloat the Israel section so much that it would probably require its own article. I plan to add it anyway, but I would like you to consider (and discuss here) whether a new article is in order. PluniAlmoni (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest you go ahead and add the text and ref to this article and then let's have a look as to whether it should be split into a new article. This is what we did with Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement and we may have to with others besides Israel as well as this story gets increasingly detailed and complex. - Ahunt (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Japan vs. Israel

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/MJ12Dh01.html "We received US government approval to offer Japan, the first country outside the partnership, a very robust industrial opportunity," John Balderston, the director for Lockheed's Japan F-35 Campaign

So the package offered to Israel is not robust? Hcobb (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As your article clearly states, Israel isn't "outside the partnership," but is among the nine nations jointly developing the F-35. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Who's buying for who??

http://flot.com/news/navy/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=86872

translate

Basically the Navy just ordered everyone some toys, the problem is that it doesn't really fit into the format of the Orders section, because the group ordering the aircraft isn't necessarily the group receiving them. -Nem1yan (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Conformal fuel tanks

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/israel-to-boost-range-of-future-f-35-fleet-220748/

Do we have a second source for this claim? Hcobb (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Foreign Military Sales

http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20111220_F35JAPAN.pdf

LockMart's .mil site (what better proof for Ike's Military–industrial complex could you ever ask for?) lists Israel and Japan as the first two Foreign Military Sales, so shall we reorg to match their rhetoric?

BTW: The Israel section is getting a bit hefty so might we toss it into a new F-35I article? Hcobb (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is probably time to split off the Israeli section, as it is getting quite long! - Ahunt (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

After all Canada gets their own article and they are far short of having the technical ability to make changes to their aircraft. Hcobb (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

...which has zero relevance to whether Canada gets its own article. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree - it is not the technical capabilities of the country that determines whether we should split the article, but the volume of text about the subject. In this case both Canada and Israel have enough text that they should be separate articles. Canada already is and Israel should be too. - Ahunt (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks all in favor, article title is what then? Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Israeli procurement or Lockheed Martin / Israel Aerospace Industries F-35I Barak ? Hcobb (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I would say go with the first suggestion there, as it will align better with the rest of articles in the series. I think it should deal with the procurement and then, if the volume of text is as big as it looks to be, a second article with a title similar to your second suggestion can be started on the "in service" history, once (and "if") the aircraft enters service with the IDF. - Ahunt (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Boldly copy and pasted into place as above. Needs some ref cleanup, linkage and a different photo (of the airbase?). Anything else? Hcobb (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I fixed a ref and will remove the text from the existing article, add a "main" template, etc. - Ahunt (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we need an F-35 navbox as well, so i will make one up. - Ahunt (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye out for one or more images to include. An F-35 mockup in Israeli colors would be best. We could also use the IAF logo and a pic of the known airbase. Perhaps a photo of one of the agreements being made? Hcobb (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Those all sound like good ideas to me! The nav box Template:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II has been completed and installed in all related articles. - Ahunt (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Really need to attribute the contents back to this article, you cant just copy and paste it is against the rules. Suggest somebody has a look at Template:Copied and apply it as appropriate, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The fix is to reorg and rewrite the article to have a decent internal structure so that this issue goes away. Hcobb (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem I added the "Copied" template to Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Israeli procurement. - Ahunt (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

F-35 will likely fail to meet two of the Korean Air Force’s key requirements

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/02/116_104306.html The United States Air Force (USAF) variant of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 will likely fail to meet two of the Korean Air Force’s key requirements — the ability to carry weapons externally and fly at Mach 1.6 (1,930 kilometers per hour) or faster, an industry insider said Tuesday.

I'm reluctant to add this, because I can guess that the insider is not in a position to be neutral. 17:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

LRIP 6 to 8

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2012-02-17/lockheed-f-35-partners-wont-suffer-unduly-production-slowdown Australia (two) and Italy (four) are placing their first orders in Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot 6, and have already funded long-lead production items. Turkey is following in LRIP 7, and Norway (four) in LRIP 8. Canada and Denmark are the two partners who have yet to commit. The first deliveries to Israel and Japan will be from LRIP 8.

Worth extending the orders table yet, or let Italy fallout first? Hcobb (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say go ahead. You can note that Canada hasn't signed a contract yet and won't until 2013, if ever. All the signs are that the govt is trying to find a good excuse to not buy any at all. - Ahunt (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Latin American military history task force articles

Really? The only "Latin" country I see on an offer is Spain. Hcobb (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Dutch to reduce order

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/15/dutch-fighter-idUSL6E8FF0E520120415 "The next cabinet will decide. It will certainly be fewer."

Almost, but not quite news, I suppose. Hcobb (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that is solid enough to include as long as the quote is attributed. It really shows trends on the project which are going to become important in the next 12 months, that of cancellations. - Ahunt (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The suggestion is that the Dutch will 69, but it's not quite spelled out. Hcobb (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that reporting the level of uncertainty is part of the story. - Ahunt (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

So the proper edit is high ranking off. X casts doubt on size of Dutch order? Hcobb (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Like - Ahunt (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

And the Dutch are having an anti-JSF election...

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/05/dutch-fighter-f-idINL6E8I5A1I20120705

Hcobb (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Page move

An editor recently moved this article to Procurement of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. I asked an admin to look this over and he moved it back. At WikiProject Aircraft we have a consensus to name child articles, like procurement subjects, using the format Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II COUNTRY procurement to make the Wikipedia search parameters work better for readers, so please don't move the article again without a new consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

France?

It is being mentioned in numerous UK newspapers and news media that France is planning on buying the F35 C variant, this is total news to me, can anyone else firm that up please? Twobells (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

That seems very unlikely given their commitment to the Rafael, but if you have a ref you can add it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I was just going to do that Sam Kiley is a very well respected defence correspondent but I think they have got this completely wrong, I believe they mean cross-deck compatibility with the Rafaele. Twobells (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

References

Helmet News

While I personally believe that Venlet will go with the British Aerospace version there is some news on a potential fix for the VSI solution. Twobells (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

References

Avoiding South Korean OR

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2012/06/13/76/0301000000AEN20120613005200315F.HTML "There are some limited areas for the F-15 SE, Eurofighter and F-35A that cannot be tested through actual flight testing," said a senior DAPA official, citing delays in developments of their core parts such as their stealth components or radar systems.

It's clear to me that they are talking about the silencing of the Eagle and the new eyes of the Eurofighter, but since it ain't split out by the source I can't point this out. (I'll keep an eye out for it.) Hcobb (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Baby Seal of Great Britain

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=117166 Panetta Lauds First International F-35 Delivery to U.K.

This aircraft isn't actually going to the UK, right? It's going to sit in America to train Royal Navy ground crews, right? Hcobb (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what you header means but two British aircraft have been flying in the US as part of the trials fleet, no intention to train ground crews or take them to the UK at the moment. The "delivery" in the article you link to is just a political thing. MilborneOne (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The article isn't clear on that, but I think you are correct, it is staying in the USA for now. - Ahunt (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought it was no big deal. Hcobb (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

These sorts of events usually turn out to be mostly symbolic. In this case one of the training planes in the USA has a roundel on it instead of a star. - Ahunt (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2012/07/brits-first-f-35-heads-for-florida-to-go-to-work.html

Anybody else want to roll BK-1 through the drive-thru of a certain fast food joint commonly found in Florida? Hcobb (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The intention is for the UK to have six aircraft stationed in the US for training. What's not clear is will these be six production aircraft or the three limited capability LRIP and three later models. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Final assembly vs a cog in the supply chain

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=117213

My impression is that Carter is contrasting the old-school final assembly of jet fighter in purchasing country with a new model of global sourcing for the F-35, but I'm not sure he's stating this clearly enough to note here. Hcobb (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is a bit too elementary and doesn't really say anything new. Mostly political noise. - Ahunt (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Rename the page please

Please move this page to ... and international participation

Then all the trivia of foreign companies contributing to the joint F-22/F-35 program can be listed here. Hcobb (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Because this article is already fairly long, personally I would prefer this article remain about procurement and cover the international participation other than procurement in the main article or perhaps in a new split-off article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Canadian section seems too political

Canada has a multi-party system of government and it is often true that majority governments have more seats than their share of the popular vote. So, there is no reason to put quotes around Mr. Harper's majority government. A major issue in the 2011 Canadian election was cost overruns for the F-35s which will not even be purchased for several years. Many voters were upset that their time was being wasted with an imaginary issue invented by the opposition parties and the liberal media.174.3.61.221 (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point; it seems to have been written by someone with an axe to grind. I've tweaked the wording. Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)