Talk:F-35 Lightning II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Former featured article This article is a former featured article. Please see its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
F-35 Lightning II is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.See comments
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Aviation WikiPortal
Main Page trophy F-35 Lightning II appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 17, 2006.
Peer review F-35 Lightning II has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 Military aviation task force
United States military history task force
Weaponry task force
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Engtech article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.
Archive

Archives
1 2

Contents

[edit] Yak-41

I removed this section until it can be substantiated:

The JSF (F-35) design is based on the soviet Yakovlev-41 supersonic, VTOL naval fighter-bomber plane. The blueprints were sold by the cash-strapped Yakovlev bureau in the early 90's. The USA refined the plans previously made by Yakovlev for a land-based STOL variant dubbed Yak-141 into the F-35. The soviet's two small vertical lift jet engines were thrown out, while Rolls-Royce developed a new powerplant, based on the soviet swiveling-tailpipe design, which could also spin a large, horizontal central fan for cold lift thrust. Other than that, the Yak-141 shape changed relatively little, mostly to boost stealth capabilities and incorporate hidden weapons bays. Internally a lot has been changed, but structurally and with regards to electronics, the plane was essentially redesigned. -Joseph (Talk) 19:53, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

The above indeed is inaccurate. It should say that Yak-141 inspired the F-35, since they are two completely different aircrafts. I found something on the JSF official website:

The exhaust from the engine flows through the 3 Bearing Swivel Nozzle (3BSN). The 3BSN nozzle, developed by Rolls-Royce, was patterned along the lines of the exhaust system on the Yakovlev Yak-141 STOVL prototype that flew at the 1992 Farnborough air show. A US Navy program also developed swivel nozzles in the late 1960's and was proposed for a supersonic STOVL design by Convair (one of the Lockheed Martin heritage companies) in the early 1970's. (JSF Concept) Jigen III

Thanks for removing that fanboy tripe about the F-35 being based on the Yak-141. Lockheed purchased Yakovlev's lift fan performance data and nothing more.

It is a matter of fact that F-35 is much as "Yakovlesky", as the Tu-144 was "Konkordsky". Since Lockhead did pay the russkies hard cash for all the blueprints, technology and mock-ups they got, I see no problem admitting it, apart form shattering the yankees' sense of exceptionless technological superiorty. The Yak-41/141 connection should be definitely mentioned in the article, because its entire omission is definitely biased! 195.70.32.136 10:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


  • The Yak-141 is an airplane and a quick look shows that the F-35 clearly is not derived from it. Lockheed purchased information from Yakovlev to gain insights on its lift fan technology - not the whole aircraft design. Any good design engineering team is going to look at available "lessons learned" from the past, partly so that they don't "reinvent the wheel" and partly to see if there are specific innovations that might apply - or be further developed - to satisfy the demands at hand. I'm sure that Yakovlev's approach with Yak-41/141 wasn't the only approach studied, especially since its partner BAE Systems has considerable expertise with VTOL and STOVL propulsion systems. Moreover, the Lockheed engineers inherited a fair amount of expertise themselves through their GD/Convair heritage. Just how much the F-35 benefited from the Yak-141 information I don't know, but probably quite little (and I do not say that to disparage Russian technological capabilities). Otherwise, they might have funded Yakovlev to further develop or modify it (since US-Russian relations were much better then than they are now). Askari Mark | Talk 22:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overall Costs

Perhaps there should be a section on overall costs, similair to the paragraph on partnership levels, but including the US' share? —Aiden 20:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] American Contribution

The primary customers are the armed forces of the United States (USAF, USN, and USMC) and the United Kingdom (RAF and RN). There are three levels of international participation for the eight countries contributing to the program. The United Kingdom is the sole level I partner, contributing a little over $2 billion. Level II partners are Italy and the Netherlands, contributing $1 billion and $800 million respectively. At level III are Turkey ($175 million), Australia ($144 million), Norway ($122 million), Denmark ($110 million), and Canada ($100 million)

Where in the article does it mention how much the US has invested in the project? - Hayter 12:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is the industrial partner website. It says that the UKs contribution is approx 10% of development costs. Other partners contribute, in total, approximately another 15%. Which leaves the US carrying the can for 75%. Do the maths and you have the US dollar figure. Of course, the figures are now no longer accurate due to cost overruns and financial juggling.--Phillip Fung 01:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sequence

Is it valid to place the F-21 in the sequence section? I mean, it's not a US aircraft. Equinoxe 17:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It's part of the designation sequence since it was adopted by the US armed forces as an aggressor aircraft and thus dubbed the F-21 by them. Joffeloff 20:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense speculation about F-24

An anon keeps reinserting a mix of speculation and original research about the missing F-24 designation into the intro. I've deleted this dubious info as it lacks citation, and even if it were true, it would not belong in the intro. --Mmx1 04:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  • "Missing numbers" in the designation sequence do not necessarily mean anything. There is no requirement that each and every one be assigned. (Anyone really think there was an 'F-13' fighter?) The speculated F-24 could represent a YF concept that did not "get off the ground," or perhaps was reserved for the proposed naval version of the F-22, or simply skipped for a variety of reasons (such as some Pentagon general simply liking "F-35" better than "F-24"). Who knows? Without a reliable citation, the best that can be said is that many people expected the JSF to be designated "F-24" and were surprised when "F-35" was assigned instead. Jgarth's explanation below makes sense to me. Askari Mark | Talk 22:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JSF Price: $82M Per Plane

Here is a quote:

The cost of the U.S. F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program has risen to $82.1 million, enough to require the Pentagon to notify Congress, which it has done, according to Air Force officials. Surging material costs, especially for aluminum and titanium; the addition of another wing production line in Italy; and program restructuring are to blame, according to Air Force sources. The price tag for a single JSF has risen by 33 percent since 2001, when the average plane cost $61.8 million, the sources said.[1]

What about the total cost, you ask:

In a quarterly "selected acquisition report," Pentagon analysts now estimate that it will cost $276.5 billion to develop three versions of the F-35 and build about 2,400 of the planes for the Air Force, Navy and Marines. That's up from the $256 billion figure last given for the program.[2]

--DelftUser

[edit] Skipping the F-24 thru F-34 Designation

It's still unclear why the DoD [The designation "F-35" was chosen at the Department of Defense level;] skipped eleven sequential numbers. Other stealth planes? This seems an important factoid. Clues? Hints? Rumors? --Robertkeller 00:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

An idea-- maybe the DoD didn't want a series of "F" planes whose designations run concurrent with the (then) current and well-known crop of Russian MiG fighters. You would have been getting "F-27" and "F-29" in the scheme, possibly causing confusion.
The reason it was named the F-35 stems from the Concept Definition Phase; where the Boeing and Lockheed demonstrators were both assigned "X"-designations. The rationale for designating the demonstrators as [X-Planes] rather than giving them the usual Y-designation (eg. like the YF-22 and YF-16) was that the prototypes were pioneering an advanced technology, ie. an integrated vertical lift system. When the X-35 won the fly-off competition; it seemed natural to the Department of Defence to officially re-designate it as the F-35. [3] Jgarth 04:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing

I added the confusing tag to the Analysis of the Program section. This section begins with one long run on sentence and I am not entiry sure where a thouhgt begins or ends. Sir hugo 14:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You ripped me off! Where's my Radio?
Enlarge
You ripped me off! Where's my Radio?

[edit] The F-22 is better get with the times man!

the F-22 has supercruise and stealth capabilitys whats the JSF got?? Plus the F-22 has internal weapons storage. Wheres your messiah now ??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by F 22 (talk • contribs).

Sadly you have bought the F-22 "smoke and missors" campaign that wows the public with irrelevant capabilities to make you miss the obvious shortcomings such as ACTUAL RANGE instead of some heavily caveated statistic like "supersonic range"...who gives a darn if you can't get to the fight or can't stay on station when you get there?
Are you a stealth expert? Do you know the per centages of stealth "reductions?" Who choses the basis for stealth comparison for tactical relevancy? How much stealth is needed to do the job? What frequency spectrums are important? What is the reliability and maintainability of the stealth? If you can't answer these questions, then you shouldn't be making a recommendation!
The JSF is a strike aircraft and is designed to be one. The F-22's bomb-carriage and bomb-dropping capabilites pale in comparison to the JSF F-35. Try comparing relevant capabilities. Ask yourself what capability is more relevant today -- shooting down an advanced fighter or flying a long way to drop many accurate weapons?? Oh yeah...don't forget to factor in cost. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.10.57.213 (talk • contribs).

look mate. The f 22 is the best jet/bomber fighter in the world! There is nothing that can compair to the awesome power of the raptor! Do you even know what supercruise is! I dont think you do. You are saying that being able to travel a 1.6 mach or over. with useing after burners is worthless. You say the raptor dosnt have range what about supercruise mate. why dosnt the great Jsf have it them! The jsf dosnt even exist yet and people are all ready saying its our messiah. It may be cheaper now but it will go up will the raptor goes down.

The F 22 has the ability of stealth. And yes stealth is easy to maintain mate! seven f 22s took on 35 F-15s and the F-22s didnt suffer a single loss, because of their stealth and you call stealth worthless. It is estimated that the F-22 could take 15 su-35 fighters on and win. The JSF is all talk and no action while the raptor is action!!!!!!!!!!

The F-22 has internal weapons storage how can that be bad! Also how do we know whats going to happen in the future. Who knows we might go to war with a nation with good fighters. Stop trying to predict the future, and buy the F-22 raptor!

Anyway who wants a single engine aircraft? Not me. Not even Albania! Performance

This may be true but the F-22 lacks the capability to drop gravity aided nuclear weapons, whereas the JSF can. This function will become more and more important in the future.

The F-22 cant even take off/land on a Short runway (STOL)! This function will be essential for the new carriers like the CVN-80.

No, the awesome power of the raptor is nothing compared with the awesome power of Chuck Norris. --Mmx1 17:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm guessing this whole section is a joke? "Anyway who wants a single engine aircraft? Not me. Not even Albania!"? Eh, the United States, to the tune of 3,000 aircraft. Also purchased 1 or 2 F-16s!!! Keep your feet on the ground folks. Mark83 19:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


any way, who cares about these advanced aircraft, if it can get shot down by militas with AK-47's!! who are they realy intended to fight? China? Europe? the middle east dosent really have the "Defence" technologie to justify such an aircraft?

[edit] F-22

Maximum speed: >Mach 2.42, 1,600 mph (2570 km/h) at high altitude Cruise speed: >Mach 1.72, 1,140 mph (1830 km/h) at high altitude Range: ferry 2,000 mi (3200 km) Service ceiling: >50,000 ft USAF, 60,000 ft Boeing (>15 000 m, 18 000 m) Rate of climb: ft/min[3] (m/s) Wing loading: 96 lb/ft² (470 kg/m²) Thrust/weight: 1.3~1.41 Maximum g-load: 9.5 g

[edit] F-15

Maximum speed: >Mach 2.54...

Speed ain't everything. Oh, and nice dragon comment...Winstonwolfe 07:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JSF

Performance Maximum speed: Mach 1.6 (1,200 mph, 2000 km/h) Cruise speed: Mach (mph, km/h) Range: 620 miles (1000 km) Service ceiling: 48,000 ft (15 000 m) Rate of climb: 40,000 ft/min[15] (200 m/s) Wing loading: 91.4 lb/ft² (446 kg/m²) Thrust/weight: 0.88

in your face JSF viva F-22


This may be true but the F-22 lacks the capability to drop gravity aided nuclear weapons, whereas the JSF can.



Look, you just cant compair the Two, the F-22 is an inteceptor/ figther aircraft and the F-35 is a multirole aircraft. Anyway, a dragon is better than them both. And my messiah is in a turtel. DAMN YOU LEGESLATIVE ASSEMBLY!

Dfrg.msc 07:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we get some information on which nuclear weapons the F-35 can carry? I'd assume the B-61, but can it also carry the much more important B83? This is getting to be a pretty important matter as of late.Monty2 01:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree Monty, one of the main factors to being a multirole-aircraft is that it can drop gravity aided nuclear Weapons, so we should try to find some informaion on that. Dfrg.msc 22:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree, Nuclear weaponry has no tactical value whatsoever, Its primary use is more of a fear factor/shock and awe technique. Besides the fact that the B83 has the F-22 listed as a carrier. I really don't think the f-35 should replace the A-10 either, sure it's a decent replacement for the f-16 as a cheap, dogfighting, export aircraft, and adds variety with the loss of the f-14s. But it can't quite compare to the A-10's suppression and close combat abilities, not to mention the A-10's durability or reputation among enemies. Plus the f-35 doesn't appear to have the all weather and sensory capabilities of the F-15E Strike Eagle or the usefulness of the the F-18E/F Super Hornet. More of a cross between the two. F-18E/F + F-15 = F-35.
      • While the A-10 is an excellent aircraft it has this nasty bug where it seems to spend as much time shooting at allied forces as it does at the enemy. Hopefully they will install some kind of see-through windsheild on the F-35 or maybee train the pilots that British APCs are not enemy units. Dellarb 14:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
You're kidding right? Yes there have been friendly fire incidents, but when you are working so close to friendly forces, accidents in close air support do happen. Friendly fire deaths are not even close to the casualties the A-10 has inflicted on enemy forces. See also: "Other Parachute Regiment officers had told him they prefer to call in American A-10 Tankbusters for air support when under fire because of what they see as the RAF's ineffectiveness, he added."BBC 22 September 2006 They wouldn't prefer it if they were afraid it would kill them. --Dual Freq 14:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
While what i said was partly a joke the A-10 does have a bad rep. While this may be due to its role i can think of one incident where it fired on a vehicle with a large british flag painted on the side that was facing the aircraft. It is probably more a reflection on pilots, who likely want action that just is not there in low intensity conflicts like Iraq however. Dellarb 14:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
And how many British forces would be dead if an A-10 had not destroyed the enemy forces they were called in to destroy? How big does that flag look to an aircraft going 180+ kts at a few thousand meters range? Is the JSF's higher speed going to cause more deaths? All aircraft involved in close support have fratricide incidents, the A-10 is involved in much more CAS than other A/C, so it stands to reason they would have the most accidents. Bad rep? Maybe a bad rap. --Dual Freq 15:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
And that's why every army except the US uses helicopters for close air support. - Dammit 16:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yes, you're right about that. Everyone one knows about those high-speed jets the US Army uses, the AH-64 Apache. - BillCJ 17:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Note the smiley. Fratricide incidents are mostly the result of doctrines, not of the weapon used. The Dutch F-16's and Apaches in Afghanistan have had no fratricide incidents, despite being called to action on a daily basis. - Dammit 17:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I had noted it :) Fratricide is the result of an unfortunate series of events leading to a tragic accident. Given enough time to compensate for the numbers difference, the Netherlanders will make mistakes too. Mistakes happen; it's a sad fact of war. Yes, there are usually things that, if done correctly, would have prevented the incident.
In truth, the USAF needs to grow up, and allow the Army to operate its own CAS aircraft (A-10 type), out of its own budget. The Army has no interest in taking on other roles beyond CAS, and the Air Force really doesn't want to do it if it means having slow, specialized attack planes. Fast-movers have been ineffective at CAS in the past, and precision weapons don't give a long loiter time, something which an effective CAS plane must have. This is what the A-10 was developed for, and what it's best at. Sure, it's not perfect, but the A-10C precision upgrade sould go a long way toward improving accuracy. - BillCJ 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't take this the wrong way, but according to Afghanistan_War_order_of_battle#Netherlands 6 F-16's and 6 Apaches are included in the OOB. Unfortunately one of those F-16's was lost in August 2006.[4] Numbers of sorties is a factor in combat losses and fratricide and as mentioned above, its only a matter of time until they have a fratricide incident too. According to James Dunnigan's blog in Jan 2006, [5] A-10s average around 18 sorties per day (each nearly four hours long). I'd expect that the A-10 CAS sorties per day greatly exceeds the Dutch F-16 sorties per day. That said, I'm sure that the Dutch presence has saved many coalition lives and is greatly appreciated by coalition ground forces. I also agree that the Army should operate CAS aircraft just as the USMC operates their own aircraft for CAS. --Dual Freq 19:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually there are currently 8 Dutch F-16's there and your own source states that "fact, most of the sorties are scouting missions" and "Several times a month, an A-10 will be called on to apply some precision firepower with it’s 30mm cannon". Although I'm sure there are way more than 8 A-10's in Afghanistan I also think that the US aircraft are less careful than its coalition partners.How the hell did we end up discussing Dutch F-16's from someone yelling viva F-22, maybe we should put an end to the discussion. - Dammit 20:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion was about A-10 fratricide, which some wag had brought up 4 months after the comment that the A-10 was better than the JSF in CAS. Oh, and you mentioned the Dutch F-16s :) - BillCJ 21:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming

On 7 July 2006, the Air Force announced the official name of the JSF as the Lightning II. As such, I have taken the liberty of moving the page and adding a little bit of information about the naming. (Personally, I wish they had gone with Phoenix or Kestrel.) Sertrel 17:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've changed a few redirects and some articles into the new name. Joffeloff 17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Kestrel had already been used on the Hawker Siddeley Kestrel, the evaluation prototypes of the Harrier, so it would have been Kestrel II. GraemeLeggett 09:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Seems the F-22 Raptor's prototypes (YF-22) also carried the preliminary name "Lightning II". I edited that article the other day. --Charles Gaudette 18:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The way it reads now, it almost sounds like the U.S. Air Force decided the name "Lightning II". Anyone have a reference to the body (perhaps the U.S. Department of Defense) that actually did the act of naming the aircraft? --Charles Gaudette 06:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I fixed the wording to show that the USAF announced the name (not named it) and added a link to the official press release.Sir hugo 13:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Just read the release - rather overblown. Rather overlooked the EEL's poor fuel record too, but that wouldn't have looked good in a release. GraemeLeggett 13:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the P-38 Lightning article, it seems that "Lightning II" was actually the British name of a P-38 variant; so technically, wouldn't that mean that it should be the "Lightning II" in the US and "Lightning III" on the other side of the pond? (Then again, they had their own separate English Electric Lightning, with no numeration, so maybe not. Sertrel 17:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No. I suspect that the F-35 will be initially referred to as the 'Lightning FGR.1' or something similar in British service. Subsequent revisions will be FGR.2, FGR.3, etc. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
FGR? Sertrel 19:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Fighter-Ground (attack)-Reconnaissance. GraemeLeggett 20:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

surely they would enter a letter refering to its fleet defence role? or mabye the RN will give a seperate name refering for their requirements of the aircraft? yerkschmerk 12:56, 30 september 2006

The P-38 article was incorrect. The non-turbo version of the P-322 was known as the Lightning Mk.I, and the turbo version was the Lightning Mk.II-- not "Lightning I" and "Lightning II".

[edit] Excellent in-depth review of JSF in Flight International

The latest edition of Flight International contains an excellent write-up of the current status of the JSF program; and contains a high-resolution threeview drawing of all three variants: http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/06/28/207482/First+strike+Flight+International+JSF+special.html When someone gets the time, it would be worth updating this article to incorporate information from the Flight article; including advanced manufacturing processes; global participation; flight test plans, etc. Jgarth 04:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, The Star Telegram has published a good summary timeline and poster chart. This is probably worth incorporating as a reference: http://www.dfw.com/multimedia/dfw/JSFposterweb.pdf Jgarth 16:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transportation of parts

BAE are building large sections of every plane in the UK and then shipping them to Lockheed for assembly. Does anyone know how? Are they put in containers or flown? Mark83 18:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thunderbird F-35's?

Because the USAF is replacing the F-16 Fighting Falcon/Viper with the F-35 will the USAF also swap out the current Thunderbird F-16's with new F-35's?

The F-16s they have now were acquired 4 years after the jet was introduced. And the Blue Angels didn't get their Hornets until 3 years after its production. Based on that, I don't think it'll be immediate. And you also have to consider if the F-35 is the aircraft they want when it comes time to replace their Falcons. There could be another aircraft around in the future. 205.174.22.28 04:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

-Future manned fighter-types are going to be few and far between. Since large fighters like the F-22 are not suited to Thunderbirds duty, the Lightning II (or perhaps a low-cost trainer) is it.

[edit] USA Contribution?

Reading through the initial portions of the article (regarding contributions from various countries) I was left somewhat confused. It says that the UK is the only tier 1 partner, contributing 2 billion etc. No mention here of the USA or the USA's contribution, unless that's the partner that they are referring to (as opposed to the other partners (ie countries)). I can't believe they haven't contributed anything towards it, and yet no figure is mentioned that I can find. T h e M a v e r i c k 06:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you could say that it is implicit that any responsibilities or workshare not mentioned are that of the U.S., since they are obviously the coordinating nation. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I suppose that one could, but I have to wonder if that's a dangerous thing in an encyclopaedia? I'm sure that most within the USA would probably assume that the USA's involvement (as designers and manufacturers) was "a given", but the USA's financial contribution wasn't (and isn't) as obvious to little old me waaaay down here in the South Pacific. I've now read the article and watched a wonderful 2 part discovery channel program on it - and I'm still none the wiser about this point. T h e M a v e r i c k 06:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering that the US is doing the majority of the funding, it makes no sense that the article does not explain how much that funding is, especially when the article does detail how much the other countries are contributing to funding. The article needs information about how much the US is spending. —Lowellian (reply) 09:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The GAO said last year that R&D would eventually exceed $44 billion. That doesn't now agree with the pegging of the UK contribution of $2B as "10%" (and the citation leads to a frame anyway). We may better off leaving contribution percentages out. --Dhartung | Talk 05:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship of russian connection

The words "Russia" or "USSR" or "Soviet Union" or "Yakovlev" do not appear in this article, even though the Yak-41 was the basis of the F-35 design. Whole airframe mock-ups, swivel-pipe engines, all the blueprints were bought from Russia for 300mio USD. Without the russkies the F-35 would not nearly look this way or work this way. It is very biased to omit mention of the crucial ex-soviet know-how from this article. The Boeing X-32 MantaRay was genuine american technology, the F-35 is not. 195.70.32.136 06:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That tripe has shown up and been expunged before. It's not censorship because we're not governmental here. It's not bias if it's not deliberate, but I am skeptical of your claims. You need to provide a source. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
There might be more to this than first meets the eye. I did a quick google - take a look at http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/russia/yakovlev/yak-41/yak-41.htm. No mention of the Yak-41 being "the basis of the F-35 design", but it is acknowleged that Yakovlev were involved. T h e M a v e r i c k 07:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Some substantiation may be found here (at least):
Morrocco, John D., "Lockheed Martin taps Yakovlev for STOVL skills", Aviation Week & Space Technology 1995, v142n25, Jun 19, p. 74-77.
Lockheed Martin is turning to Russia's Yakovlev Design Bureau for help in designing short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft for the US Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) competition.
Wikipedia shouldn't be judging whether or not the technology contribution was important (that's original research). It should be reporting what is known and citing sources. It's quite clear that there was a huge 1990s rush to license Russian technology[6]; this isn't remarkable.--Dhartung | Talk 17:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Further confirmation:
"At the rear of the plane is a three-bearing swivel duct that deflects exhaust from the F119 engine downward to support the tail of the aircraft. The design of this duct was inspired by the Russian YAK-141 STOVL plane, [Lockheed-Martin's Charles "Tom"] Burbage says." [7] Aerospace America, 2001
From the horse's mouth, as it were. --Dhartung | Talk 19:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That has already been addressed. The claim that the airframe and core design was lifted from Yakovlev is as yet unsubstantiated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.168.221.221 (talk • contribs).

Please sign your posts on talk pages. Yes, thank you, I addressed that claim by adding the citation I found. Before I did, however, there was no reference to the Yak-141 in the article, demonstrating a failure of research.--Dhartung | Talk 23:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pop culture

Would it be appropiate to say in the article it makes an apperance in Battlefield 2 and a few other video games? --DragonWR12LB 09:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • It woluld be, and I'd support a F-35 Lightning II in Popular culture segment or article. Dfrg.msc 22:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Nay —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 00:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KC-135 "only use the flying boom" statement in error?

I believe the statement "... sacrificing compatibility with Air Force KC-135 Stratotankers, which only use the flying boom in-flight refueling system..." is in error. I was a flier in the USAF from 1989-1996 at bases where KC-135s were stationed and know that the KC-135 could use a non-retractable drogue attachment that went on the end of the boom. Thus, it was kind of a "drogue via boom" setup. The attachment was, of course, not interchangeable in flight and its length required a stand to support it when the aircraft was parked. Is this system no longer in use?

  • You are correct. The KC-135 in USAF service has both types of refuel methods. In order for the stock USAF KC-135 to use the drogue method, it has to be first setup for drogue only use on the ground. It is an adapter that fits on the end of the boom. Older photos of the drogue attachment here ( this method is still used today when needed ( I'm at a location with USAF KC-135R's ):

http://www.takhli.org/bob/MemoryJoggersFromArtMcAninch2.htm There are only enough drogue/boom kits to equip half of the KC-135 fleet which is about 534 airframes.(Source- USAF 2005) In addition to that, there is the The Multi-Point Refueling System ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-135 ) which will allow drogue receiver aircraft to take fuel via wing tip drouge devices off of each wing of the KC-135. USAF has about 20 setup with this gear. So the article is in error suggesting that the KC-135 is not compatable with drogue refueling. This should be changed.( ELP USAF )

[edit] HUD

I removed The F-35, which will have helmet-mounted displays, will be the first combat aircraft in history without a heads-up-display.[11]

This seems an incredibly daft statement. Did WWI and WWII combat aircraft really have HUD's !?

I've replaced it with something a little less blind to history.--62.173.76.218 11:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft such as the WW2 Spitfire had a sort of HUD in the form of a projected gunsight onto the front windscreen. I cannot find a reference to it on the wikipedia Spitfire page nor the surprisingly brief HUD site. --Doctormonkey 09:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'The Fighter jet'?

'Known as the Fighter jet'? What the hell? Where did you get that from? --Joffeloff 13:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is "featured article"-day. Please bare with us as silly interested people mischievously freely edit the article. --Charles Gaudette 20:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Am I mistaken or wasn't it policy to semi-protect pages linked from the front page? --Mmx1 21:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
No. Frequently it happens because of vandalism, but it isn't standard (yet). --Dhartung | Talk 23:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish Participation

As I know, bodies of F-35s are going to be produced by Turkish factories. Also Turkish Airforce will start to use the F-35 as the primary air force by the year 2013. With respect, Deliogul 10:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't know either one for a fact, as neither has been established. Certainly the Turkish workshare has not yet been defined, and neither have any of their delivery dates. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
It has been repeatably stated that all JSF will be assembled in the U.S. However many companies and countries would like work share in the JSF and keep talking up their chances but so far it is only wishful thinking. 145.253.108.22 16:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] laser energy wepons tripe

some on is having a laugh, and i think you find you have to recharging chemical lasers takes along time. i think this is speculation and should be knocked out of the artical —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.244.246.25 (talk • contribs) July 27, 2006 15:06:24 GMT.

We have no reason to suspect otherwise, and the information comes from reputable sources. Quite to the contrary, it is you who would need to show that the energy weapons business is false. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I will Bellive it when i see it, i have heard these kind of things have been messed about with for years, and there is suposedly a 747 flying around with a chemical laser as part of the starwars project. however there effectivness is at best dodgy with poor range in the atmosphere and poor acurassy (the slightest bump in flight path could send you beam a fiew arc seconds and 100m off target), i think these compact cemical lasers use a cemical raction for the lasing effect and are a one shot affair. however my point was, is there any citation about such wepons being used in any of the offichial JSF documantation! if not such the reference is speculation and should not really be in an encyclopedia, or sited in as speculation. i understand that Lockeed/ US government would probably be a bit shirty about the details of such weppons. and if such infomation has been leaked out by "a credible source" from such an organisation they are probably best to keep stum.

[edit] Silly banners at the top of this Talk page

What's with the uglification? Can we done this down? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Resounding agreement. Unfortunately Wikipedians have no aesthetic sense.

[edit] raptor vs lightning

the f-22 might have short landing capabilities but with the f-35b on the way (equipped with STOVL) it will easily become a superior force. why you ask? because it is a multirole craft with exceptional air-to-air AND air-to-surface readiness. the raptor cant compare because it is pure fighter. usually an aircraft is one way (F or A) such as the f-22. it can blow enemies out of the skies but must then RTB. im not saying it cant knock off ground targets. im saying the lightning can do that and more. this plane can be scrambled and blow away tanks and facilities, etc. galore and come up with the upper hand and utter victory in a dogfight just as well. never before has a jet been so well equipped to handle BOTH sides of the coin at once.


Dogfights? We still have those? lol. Yes, the F-35 was designed as a multi-role aircraft, so why are people still trying to argue that either the Raptor or Lightning II is better than the other when you can't even place them in the same category? Everything aside though, the F-22 can kick the F-35's butt. :P AAK 14:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
We cant tell the furure. There will allways be a demand for a fighter. The F-22 is a better aircraft look at the comparison at the top of the page. But the F-22 is alot more expensive, Nearly double the price, but you get what you pay for. The only reason the F-35 is being produced is because the raptor is to expensive. It is a known fact that the F-35 has striped down technology from the raptor. The raptor is the best aircraft in the world. But it is also the most expensive.

Culverin 07:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

SU-47 > both (overpriced, overhyped pieces of...). :P

[edit] Engine Thrust

This article states that the P&W F135 delivers 165 kN whereas it actually delivers 177 kN. AAK 14:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Updated the specifications. According to Pratt and Whitney's 2006 release, the F135 engine makes 43,000 lbs (191.3 kN) of maximum thrust and 28,000 lbs (128.1 kN) of intermediate (dry) thrust. link Lockheed-Martin 2006 media kit fact sheets

[edit] New additions

Can we be careful about additions so as not to lose FA status? The new content is choppy and of very poor quality.

  • Air Force/Navy/Vertical are poor designators as the purchasing decisions are in flux - better to stick to the F-35/A/B/C designators.
  • we do not need a 40-year history of the VSTOL concept in the F-35C section. That belongs in VSTOL, not here. Touch on the past and highlights briefly, but this is ridiculous.

--Mmx1 01:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The F35-B section is out of proportion to the discussion of the other variants, largely because it contains material that is interesting but not directly relevant. Anyone feel like pruning it, and perhaps moving some of the material to another article (e.g. STOVL)? Countersubject 12:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I've had a stab at it. It was rediculous - an almost complete history of STOVL flight does not belong here. Also far too much analysis about X-32. That's not important in this context. A brief summary is fine, but full analysis belongs at X-32 article. Mark83 13:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "analysis"

I really don't like the entire analysis section. Encyclopedias by their nature should provide only plain information; the reader is responsible for his own analysis, for better or for worse. This "Analysis" is decent editorializing, but it belongs in Air International or Air & Space magazine. What critics, proponents, advocates, defenders, theorists or analysts believe is of no concern to a reference on the F-35. Those people should all form their opinions based on the Wikipedia entry (and other reference works), and the Wikipedia entry should not reproduce them. They are all POV interpretations of the facts. They would be fine in a "balanced" news or magazine article, but in an encyclopedia they are inappropriate.

At the end of the day it's all a bunch of very weasel-wordy "he said she said," cited or not. And I mean all of it, not the parts that I personally disagree with.

see WP:NPOV --Mmx1 17:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, it's an odd section to have in an encyclopedia. By definition, "analysis" calls for "judgment" and judgment is shaped by one's POV. Moreover, much of what is currently in this section isn't so much "analysis" as it is a "catch-all" collection of issues, problems encountered (and dealt with), criticisms, and responses to same. The planned procurement information, including the possible USAF STOVL purchase would better fit in the 'Program History' ... and the 'Future of the JSF' subsection is more about speculation regarding UCAVs than about the future of the F-35. --Askari Mark | Talk 03:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patent

U.S. Patent 5,209,428  for a "Propulsion system for a vertical and short takeoff and landing aircraft" was invented by Bevilaqua; Paul M. (Santa Clarita, CA), and assigned to Lockheed Corporation. According to a February 26, 2004 LM press release, "Rolls-Royce, under contract to Pratt & Whitney, is developing the lift fan for all future STOVL F-35s", but Bevilaqua (for LM) invented the shaft-driven lift fan.[8] I would think that the article should say LM not RR for the patent. Dual Freq 13:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that correction and sorry for jumping on my high horse too quickly! Mark83 15:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Shaft driven lift fan is nothing particularly new Vanguard Omniplane of 1959 so the LM approach must have some particular aspect that is patentable, though whether it is notable - one would have to read through it all.GraemeLeggett 15:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a better citation link might be [9], but I rather like seeing Paul get his dues, so perhaps Dual Freq's citation could be moved to External References? --Askari Mark | Talk 17:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] End of the manned fighter era

The era of the manned fighter plane may be coming to an end, because the US Air Force is concentrating on unmmanned fighter planes, but the manned fighter plane has dominated the skies of the world for almost a century and more than 1,000 manned fighter types have been developed, built, and flown so far.


  • I suppose whoever posted this here meant it to go in the main article rather than the Talk page, but it seems rather incongruous to say "the US Air Force is concentrating on unmmanned fighter planes" when the only major (unclassified) UCAV program was recently canceled. What is more likely is that the era of manned reconnaissance aircraft is coming to an end since that's where almost all of the USAF's unmanned efforts are going into recce and surveillance UAVs. Askari Mark | Talk 02:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current status of F136 engine?

The article states that it it canceled under the current budget proposals, but if I look on various sites (GE, RR, Lockheed, NIFARP) they state no such thing. - Dammit 20:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's still cancelled as of 8 September 2006 according to this news report which details the U.S. Senate's attempts to reinstate funding. Mark83 21:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Technically, it's not canceled; rather, it's in limbo. The DoD proposed to non-fund it, but Congress gets the final say. Stay tuned. Askari Mark | Talk 22:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, when I said cancelled what I meant was "in limbo". Minor error, but important for what it suggests. Regarding the websites, yes they have been quiet about the problems. Perhaps they're reluctant to say anything to damage their share prices! Mark83 22:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not so much share prices as political sensitivities at the highest levels of American and British government. Askari Mark | Talk

[edit] Excessive use of footers

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Massive navboxes, again. I propose eliminating the X-plane and Lockheed Martin footers (say, this coming Sunday evening, 2006-09-24) from this article. They seem appropriate only for their respective "native" articles. Yea or nay? Askari Mark | Talk 02:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more about the Lockheed template, which I have removed. X-plane template not so clear cut. Mark83 13:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This isn't FAC quality...

This article, in my opinion, is not featured article quality. In the first place, the references are inadequate - there were several fact tags before I came along & I've now added further ref tags for 2 sections that lack references. Furthermore, there is at least one direct external link used as a ref (instead of a footnote). Secondly, at least two sections/sub-sections are very short stubs, I've added stubsection tags to them. Will the editors here please fix these issues? I really don't want to have to take it to WP:FARC. Mikker (...) 09:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I fully agee. Hopefully there will be a serious look taken at dealing with the "Analysis" section. Analysis is by its very nature subjective, albeit less so than uninformed opinion, but Wikipedia is not a critical analysis work. Moreover, it seems a shame that the longest section in the article is POV. Askari Mark | Talk 01:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Agree -- I voted to promote to FA, not sure if the article has deteriorated or not since then. Off the top of my head:
  • Opening paragraph needs a note about the competition and when the first prototypes flew. Instead, it sounds like the plane (even a prototype) hasn't flown.
  • needs lots of citations
  • POV sentences like The JSF brings up the ghost of "commonality", in the Analysis of JSF program section, should be replaced with facts.
  • Analysis of JSF program section reads like an us-against-them debate, needs to be re-written. Should start out reporting the stated goals of the project and how and if they were met. Then criticism.
  • Specifications (F-35 Lightning II) section needs to better identify sources.
  • Program history section needs to clearly cover the competition, which was a huge event and which might merit its own article
Duk 19:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Believe it or not, the article is actually much improved since it was (wrongly, IMHO) voted an FA. No offense meant to any editor; the piece was simply pushed for a vote too early and somehow cleared the bar. PRRfan 20:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I went back and read an older version of the article at the time of its FA. It was a good read and flowed well, although a marginal FA candidate. The current article is choppy and the writing more disjointed, partially because of formatting and citation required tags. The biggest deterioration (in my mind) is a snarky/snide negative POV that has crept into the article -- things like removing the actual the reason for Hyde's opposition to tech transfer to Brittan (fixed now), and my earlier example. I don't think this is FA material currently, it should be fixed or listed at Wikipedia:Featured article review if not rapidly improved. I have a little time to work on it next week.--Duk 21:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Boeing X-32 has a pretty good history of the competition. Perhaps Boeing X-32 and Lockheed Martin X-35 should redirect to something like "Joint Strike Fighter competition"? (User:Mark83)

Thanks to everyone for such a good response... I don't think there is need to panic here (as everyone realises) and so I will give it a week or so & then take it to FA review if it still doesn't meet WP:WIAFA. Mikker (...) 02:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As the problems have not yet been fixed, I've now FAR-ed the article. Mikker (...) 18:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Could someone please explain to me the difference in these figures:

"Total program development costs, less procurement, are estimated at over US$40 billion, of which the bulk has been underwritten by the United States.[3]"

"through 2004, the JSF's total projected cost had risen 23% to US$244 billion, and as of April 2006 the Pentagon is projecting the budget to rise to US$276.4 billion."

The cost is variously quoted as being $40bn and $276bn. Please help!

TreveXtalk 09:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the $276 billion is including the production cost of ~4500 fighters. - Dammit 10:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Harrier

Why the picture of the Harrier? It just clutters up the article. To be consistent, we'd have to add pictures of other aircraft the F35 will replace. Better to leave that to their own pages. Countersubject 17:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't make sense in this article Not An IP 17:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laser weapons

...would essentially also rearm the laser, which could be used even with enemy ground forces located too close to friendly ground forces for employment of explosive armaments.

Are the laser weapons that are being developped really intended to be used against ground forces? To my knowledge laser weapons are only envisioned to be used against missiles and airplanes.83.118.38.37 10:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree the statement sounds speculative, esp since the discussed solid state laser is about 100 kilowatts in power, about 1/10th the 747-based Airborne Laser. However -- there are credible official references discussing use of the solid state laser against ground targets. This article [10] quotes an Air Force scientist as saying the solid state laser (mounted in an F-35 or equiv.) could potentially "selectively destroy ground targets such as communication lines, power grids, and fuel dumps, or even target the fuel tanks on vehicles." But with only 100KW of power, it obviously wouldn't be anything like science fiction depictions of laser disintegrating targets. It would be more like holding a butane torch on the target. Joema 12:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reaction.83.118.38.37 11:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] F-35A Gun

I was at Edwards Air Force Base the other day, and the F-35A prototype they have on display there does not have an internal gun. The test pilot I spoke to (a USAF Lieutenant Colonel) indicated that the location of the gun has not yet been finalized and that the Air Force is seriously considering omitting it altogether. I haven't edited the article to put this in yet, but feel it's obviously very relevant information. Any idea on how to properly cite it? --JaceCady 06:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless and until the USAF changes the official requirement, it's just hearsay. Until we find a published source reporting the same info as your informant, I would say don't include it in the article. The value of the information is that we now know something to keep our eyes open for. Askari Mark | Talk 17:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Is the F-35 not due to replace the A-10? How will it manage that without a gun? Mark83 19:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
With a gun pod, of course! Just like the F-4 in Vietnam. I'm sure we all remember what a success that was(n't). It seems the bureaucracy, military or otherwise, must always relearn old lessons of the past. We'll see in time how this one turns out. -- BillCJ 20:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The F-35B and F-35C are already slated to carry a gun pod as needed instead of an internal gun; the Air Force is simply considering the same option on the F-35A. And it's not *exactly* hearsay; it's a definitive statement by a high-ranking Air Force officer acting in an official public-relations role. --JaceCady 23:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Was there an official press release, or printed coverage of his statements? It may well be totally accurate, but we can't put it in the article as yet because it's unverifiable.
One question on the gun pod itself: Is it going to be carried in a centerline pod, just like a fuel tank, and as on the F-4? Or, is it going to be flush-mounted like on the Harriers (I/II), with separate gun and ammo carriage pods? Incidently, the AV-8B carries the GAU-12/U, which is the same gun listed in the article for the F-35. I have heard no mention in any reports on Harriers in combat having the kind of inaccuracy problems experienced with gun pods in VIetnam. If this is how it would be mounted on the F-35s, then the USAF dumping the internal gun would make more sense. It would save weight, and make room for other equipment. -- BillCJ 00:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] X-35B Image

Is anyone having problems with seeing this image? On the article it is just a white space with a little missing image icon on the top left. However, if I click on the image it comes up fine. X360 05:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It does the same thing on my comp. I use IE 6/7 on XP Home. -- BillCJ 05:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Ditto with IE7 on my XP. -- Askari Mark | Talk 05:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I modified the image size, and uploaded it as a new file. It seems to work now at lower PXs. - BillCJ 15:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Following its relocation, I no longer see it. Askari Mark | Talk 18:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I can't see the image either. I tried to Wikipedia:Purge this page and the image page here and on Commons, but no luck. I've cleared my browser cache and tried IE6 and Firefox, no image. I've seen this before, and I thought the purge would fix it, any ideas? --Dual Freq 02:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I disabled the image for now. Seems like there is something wrong with the original pic itself, as far as I can tell. If anyone wants to try to fix or adjust it, it's in the middle of the F-35B section. - BillCJ 06:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lockheed Martin X-35 article proposal

As we get more information on the JSF, especially if/when it goes into production, this article is going to get very long. The X-35 is actually a different aircraft than the F-35, tho they are very similar (closer than the X-32 would have been to a production model). As we add more info, there might be the tendency to delete information on the X-35 and the JSF program. Instead, it might be better to create a Lockheed X-35 Lockheed Martin X-35 article for the bulk of that information, leaving some info here as a brief overview. This articile could then concentrate of the F-35 itself. We might not want to do this right away, but I think we ought to keep it in mind when we edit the older info. The JSF will probably get a thorough review in the next year or two, especially from the new-look Congress, so waiting till after a review makes sense also. No need to split the article if the F-35 gets cancelled within a couple of years. I'd prefer to go ahead and split it now, but I'll wait till there's a consensus to do so. -- BillCJ 07:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course it should be Lockheed Martin X-35 (currently a redirect to this article). Mark83 08:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks. -- BillCJ 09:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lasers for CAS?

Not to be snippy, but this is ridiculous. That section needs citation and a few "Highly Placed Air Force Sources Claim" bits put in. With a laser suitable for air-to-air combat you can, what, kill (maybe wound) an individual infantryman before they get wise and start throwing smoke grenades? It'll never do anything to an armored vehicle besides kill the crew from laughing too hard. Kensai Max 02:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The mention of energy weapons on JSF needs to be reduced. There are any number of other things re: The JSF program that are important and ongoing. ELP - 28 Nov 06
I vehemently disagree. The section is brief and we have references from a highly reputable source. I'm not sure how you could reduce it any further. Do you have an agenda? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/-/3/Talk%7EF-35_Lightning_II_b92c.html"