Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II

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? - \\'cԼF 06:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

By the time Canada would receive the F-35s, they'll have been annexed already, so it won't matter. ;) BilCat (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Lolz. Probably the best thing that could happen to them... - \\'cԼF 00:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

white house would burn down again like we did last time before u could annex us. Best snipers in the world I wouldn't want to gorilla fight against would you? 2605:8D80:67A0:3B71:8DF3:4046:20CF:C2A7 (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

So you're assuming I'm American? As they say, never go assuming anything, it makes an ass outta u and some guy named Ming. 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...

As for my original question, I guess that's a 'no'. - \\'cԼF 14:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

If this were the place to have that 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. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTM 2012 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no 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.

i want to add additional true information about this subject JENSENTODD2012 (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

 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 (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

And to add to the above, this kind of original research would not be acceptable on any article, regardless of the subject. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

What is use of compaing a jet designed in 1960 and released in 1969 to a jet released in early 2000s?

I can not understand your logic and if we are gonna compare them you didn't even mention vtol which is the whole reason the harrier was invented lol. 2605:8D80:67A0:3B71:8DF3:4046:20CF:C2A7 (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Its costing canada$318,181,818.18182 per unit. That's right over 318 million each before tariffs.

28 billion for 88 planes.

40 million for mig 35 sure sounds like a steal could have 700 migs for same price as 88 f35s. 2605:8D80:67A0:3B71:8DF3:4046:20CF:C2A7 (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

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. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

WP:LMGTFY: cost in usd for an f-35i - \\'cԼF 01:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

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.

So, still interested if anyone knows how to search for this info in publically-available records. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

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. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

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. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! If there's a usable source seems like a good detail to add, given the confusingly varied, well, variants. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

-- 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". ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, I'm convinced! For the article though we'd really like a textual -- and hopefully reliable -- source. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

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. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

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. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

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 common WP:SYNTH/WP:OR concerns with imagery interpretation. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

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-35B doesn'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)

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. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

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 . 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. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@ZLEA: According to wp: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 the wp:weight demended, is stated in just one sentence. Why did you delete edit that is supported by credible sources, including times of israel, economic times, times of india, france 24 and FT, A A and some iranian sources IRNA ?GolsaGolsa (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

GolsaGolsa The only source you cited in the original edit was Islamic 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 in WP: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 was discussed 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 also discussed 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 for featured articles. Do with that information what you will, as while this isn't a featured article, is it still rated as a good article.
• France 24 was discussed at RSN in 2019, in which it was found to be generally reliable.

Keep in mind that these claims are highly disputed, and per WP:DUE we should give due weight to all sides of the story. Your edit was WP:UNDUE as it left out the key detail that Israel has denied the claims. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Number built: from 1215 to 1230, as of September 2025. 45.166.204.125 (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

What's your source? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Can the source be possibly archived again, since it is continuously being updated? (the archival is from 2022) Isopod gang 31 (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done I tried using the archive extension on my browser, and it said the archive was successful, but it hasn't shown up on the list of page captures. I suppose it'll be there in a few hours, but I went ahead and added an archive from Oct 3 as it appears to be up to date. - ZLEA ^TǀC 18:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

nice thanks Isopod gang 31 (talk) 08:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Guys news is coming in that F-35 shot down Iranian Mig-29 yesterday that reportedly took off from Mazariyeh air base southwest of Tehran. Can we confirm this? Syed Ayan Ather (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any reliable sources covering this. This appears to have originated from unverified social media posts, so we probably shouldn't give any weight to these rumors unless and until reliable sources pick it up. - ZLEA ^TǀC 01:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

By an Israeli operated F-35. This was reported by the IDF spokesman at 10:34 Israel time on March 4th 2026. https://www.idf.il/128118 (in Hebrew). Valleyofdawn (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

A report on this by the Jerusalem post in English:

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-888768 Valleyofdawn (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

A US F-35 has been hit by suspected Iranian fire over Iran. The plane made an emergency landing and the pilot survived. Waiting to add this to the article until we know which service branch it belongs to. https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/19/politics/f-35-damage-iran-war NonCredibleDefense (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Anonymous sources and "suspected" Iranian fire, is far from sufficient sourcing to merit inclusion. Beyond getting the service branch, we should wait for actual confirmation that this occurred, and isn't just another one of Iran's fantasies. More reliable sources on defense matters, such as TWZ, aren't carrying this story yet. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:48, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

It's not anonymous sources - confirmation attributable to Capt. Tim Hawkins, CENTCOM. NonCredibleDefense (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

No, the full statement from Hawkins is We are aware of reports that a U.S. F-35 aircraft conducted an emergency landing at a regional U.S airbase after flying a combat mission over Iran. The aircraft landed safely, and the pilot is in stable condition. This incident is under investigation. There's no official comment on why it had to land. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

After the CNN and the CENTCOM report, Iran published the footage of the shotdown, I think this should be noted too ~2026-17251-06 (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok, so reliable source are you citing? and what specific wording are you proposing? --McSly (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Considering Iran has been using copious amounts of propaganda ranging from AI-generated media to literal GTA V footage to "confirm" its alleged shootdowns, we're going to need some WP:EXCEPTIONAL sources for the claim that Iran has published any such footage. - ZLEA ^TǀC 18:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Your statement lacks evidence, and the Iranian Army has not released such a video to date. If you have seen such a clip, it was likely produced by radical supporters of the Islamic Republic of Iran, or it was fabricated and disseminated by Hebrew-language media to mock Iran's military power. ~2026-17417-62 (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Checkout the List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the 2026 Iran war in Wikipedia itself, it has been described in there "IRGC published a footage of the shooting", with the source of IRNA ( Islamic republic of Iran News Agency ), It's an official news agency of the Islamic Republic, even news channels like Al Jazeera and many other channels posted the video ( I'm not sure if Al Jazeera is a reliable source for Wikipedia, I'm quite unfamilliar with which sources you consider "reliable" for this matter.) ~2026-17251-06 (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I've tagged the instance in that article as needing a better source as, from what I can see, independent sources have not verified the video's authenticity. IRNA is a state-controlled news agency in a country with one of the worst press freedom records has has a well-documented history of spreading misinformation. Without independent confirmation, exceptional claims made by IRNA should be taken with a grain of salt. - ZLEA ^TǀC 20:21, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

hello, i live inside iran. Internet is down here, but with one mobile operator, we can access wikipedia (it loads only texts of wiki, no media!)

The government propaganda everywhere (tv, websites, even emergency sms system) announced this victory for thier dictatorship government! ~2026-17310-24 (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

it's likely hitted by sayyad missile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyad_(missile) ~2026-17310-24 (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

There's no evidence to suggest at all that it was hit by a Sayyad missile. In fact, it would be extremely unlikely to have been hit by a missile that is only really in use by large fixed-location facilities and naval VLS cells; and the fact that the F-35 landed safely weighs pretty strongly against the probability that it was a RIM-66-sized large SAM involved.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:31, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry , But your speech is out of context for main topic . ~2026-17482-49 (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@NonCredibleDefense Story is covered by CNN, Forbes, SCMP, Al Jazeera, etc. This should be in the article because it is the first emergency landing of any F-35 engaged in combat. Details of suspected / claimed fire are optional, but could be included, it's not like WP:BLP applies. Doeze (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

As we know, Donald Trump has been extremely bold and flashy with his military ideas such as the “Trump” Class Battleship and it has been reported by USAToday, Fox, NBC, Etc that he has pitched a twin engine-like F-35 variant which would be it’s own aircraft pretty much due to having two engines as opposed to one engine like the current F-35 models are. CaroIinaDawg (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

If any development comes of the idea, then we will probably create an article on it. As of right now, it appears that has not (yet, at least) happened. While projects like the Trump-class battleship are known to be in active development, there has yet to be any indication of such for the F-55. - ZLEA ^TǀC 03:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC)