Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II development
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
- To be rated B I would expect more infobox, images, diagrams and tables. There is no C in this project, but the article is superior to start! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Insert info from this article to main F-35 article?
editCurrently F-35 article development portion looks very promotional and barely mentions all of the information in this article. Should we add this information to the main F-35 article to make it more neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConcernedCitizenWC (talk • contribs) 21:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Just read it, not seeing that. What parts do you think are promotional? You can note that this article was split off that one, because it was far too long, see WP:LENGTH. - Ahunt (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- The main F-35 article skips any of the unpleasant information in this article, no mention of just how many deficiencies there are and how acceleration and maneuverability specs were downgraded because Lockmart failed to meet requirements. Or the extreme cost and how the whole stealth idea is questionable since even in 1999 they short down a so called invisible stealth fighter. Or how according to RAND analysis F-35 gets outmatched by Su-35. But whenever this unpleasant information is added it gets quickly removed with some crap analysis and some marketing quotes from Lockmart and US military who are NOT neutral sources, those pilots have to obey “corporate ethics” to sell the plane so of course they don’t admit problems. Instead that article just tries to promote try saying how complex and difficult the program is and yet it’s succeeding, none of the truth is coming out. This is total double standard when Lockmart and US military statement are taken at face value but same thing from other news and Russia are thrown out as propaganda. Anti-Russia mindset you see here is disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConcernedCitizenWC (talk • contribs)
- Still not seeing that in the article. Can you provide some actual WP:RS that you think need to be cited and included? - Ahunt (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- The main F-35 article skips any of the unpleasant information in this article, no mention of just how many deficiencies there are and how acceleration and maneuverability specs were downgraded because Lockmart failed to meet requirements. Or the extreme cost and how the whole stealth idea is questionable since even in 1999 they short down a so called invisible stealth fighter. Or how according to RAND analysis F-35 gets outmatched by Su-35. But whenever this unpleasant information is added it gets quickly removed with some crap analysis and some marketing quotes from Lockmart and US military who are NOT neutral sources, those pilots have to obey “corporate ethics” to sell the plane so of course they don’t admit problems. Instead that article just tries to promote try saying how complex and difficult the program is and yet it’s succeeding, none of the truth is coming out. This is total double standard when Lockmart and US military statement are taken at face value but same thing from other news and Russia are thrown out as propaganda. Anti-Russia mindset you see here is disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConcernedCitizenWC (talk • contribs)
This article is suffering from the same problem as the F-35 article a few months ago
editThe development section reads like an aggregation of news articles and arguments back and forth over the merits of the aircraft, with a few sentences from an source criticizing it, and then another few sentences from a source defending it. I suppose this might be useful if someone really wants to read a record of all the back and forth in the media over the F-35, but unless I'm mistaken, I don't recall this being purpose of Wikipedia or an encyclopedia in general. The amount of minutia is completely in excess of what can be considered an encyclopedia article. Quite frankly, in some ways this article is more verbose and yet less informative about the F-35 development than the section in the main article. I'm tempted to try my hand at fixing this article, but it appears that some are offended by my work in the main F-35 article, so I'm not sure how to proceed here. Steve7c8 (talk) 06:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Based on your previous work, I would say "proceed anyway". - Ahunt (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how to proceed here. I have taken a few stabs at the first two sections (JSF program requirements and selection and Design phase) in my sandbox, but ended up just copying and pasting the development section of the main F-35 article. Frankly, between the main F-35 article and the Joint Strike Fighter article, it would appear that these two sections in this article are entirely redundant, as it doesn't offer any additional information aside from some marketing phrases and some pretty out of date statuses. As for the Program cost overruns and delays and Concerns over performance and safety section, this contains so much minutia, quoting, and back-and-forth between detractors and defenders that it can frankly be summarized in a paragraph or two, but I don't know how many editors are okay with that. As it current is, the section reads like some kind of blog update and is over 100kB long. It's gotten to the point of listing out problems from test and evaluation reports by year, which frankly is the kind of extreme minutia you don't see in any other encyclopedia article. Steve7c8 (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- "it can frankly be summarized in a paragraph or two" - sounds intriguing. Well why not try a summary like that and post it here for comment? - Ahunt (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds fair, I'll post what I have down below for review. Steve7c8 (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- "it can frankly be summarized in a paragraph or two" - sounds intriguing. Well why not try a summary like that and post it here for comment? - Ahunt (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how to proceed here. I have taken a few stabs at the first two sections (JSF program requirements and selection and Design phase) in my sandbox, but ended up just copying and pasting the development section of the main F-35 article. Frankly, between the main F-35 article and the Joint Strike Fighter article, it would appear that these two sections in this article are entirely redundant, as it doesn't offer any additional information aside from some marketing phrases and some pretty out of date statuses. As for the Program cost overruns and delays and Concerns over performance and safety section, this contains so much minutia, quoting, and back-and-forth between detractors and defenders that it can frankly be summarized in a paragraph or two, but I don't know how many editors are okay with that. As it current is, the section reads like some kind of blog update and is over 100kB long. It's gotten to the point of listing out problems from test and evaluation reports by year, which frankly is the kind of extreme minutia you don't see in any other encyclopedia article. Steve7c8 (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Updates
editGlancing through this, the history of the F-35 appears to stop in 2016. What has happened since then? Has the F-35 been improved? Have the flaws been fixed? Has it performed well in real-world scenarios? If this page has answers, they're hard to find. Sonicsuns (talk) 09:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Much of this article was originally lifted from the F-35 article because it was becoming far too long. Certain users (won't name them) essentially were adding content or paragraph with every news article that came out in the 2000s and 2010s, stopping at around 2016 or so. As a result, to borrow a phrase I've heard before, it reads like a blow-by-blow blog on the F-35's development by competing advocating and detracting factions. It will take considerable effort to prune this article into something readable that's also as unbiased as possible (I.e. something that’s neither sensationalized criticisms nor Lockheed Martin marketing), although I haven't the time to do so yet. Steve7c8 (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)