Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II

Canada

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)

Random info

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2025

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)

Incorrect cost per unit

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)

Cost for the F-35I

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)

Tail hooks

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)

Removing edit with the reliable source

@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)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2025

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)

Archived source for the number built

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)

Reported Iranian Mig-29 Shootdown

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)

Reported Iranian YAK-130 Shootdown

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)

F-35 hit by suspected Iranian fire over Iran

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)

Subpage For Proposed “F-55” Variant by Donald Trump

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)

Iran emergency landing in lead

The lead should have a sentence along the lines "In March 2026, during the Iran war, a US F-35 flying a combat mission made an emergency landing, reportedly after being hit by Iranian fire." This is WP:DUE because it is the first F-35 emergency landing during a combat mission, and very likely to be the first air defense interception of a fifth-generation fighter. Doeze (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

"First emergency landing during a combat mission" is not significant enough to be in the intro, as the editors of the A-10, F-15, and F-16 articles agree. (They also believe that intros should have less detail about other milestones.) A case might eventually be made for "first air defense interception of a fifth-generation fighter" in the intro, but certainly not while it remains in the realm of speculation. PRRfan (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@PRRfan What caused the landing is not really in the realm of speculation. SCMP and Air & Space Forces magazine both state Iran damaged the fighter. Other sources quote CNN's sources on it being likely Iranian fire. An NPR reporter confirms the pilot's shrapnel injury. It is quite unlikely whatever "official" confirmation you might like is on the way, given wartime censorship, see Scott Speicher. Doeze (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it is quite unlikely that whatever uncited assertion you might like will stay in the intro, given Wikipedia's citation guidelines. PRRfan (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

CNN, SCMP, and NPR are all considered widely reliable under WP:RSP, supporting the phrase "likely Iranian fire" or some variant in the lead. Air & Space Forces Magazine is not established under RSP but per Air & Space Forces Association it would likely be considered biased in favor of the USAF. Whether that makes it more likely to conceal F-35 failures, or more likely to highlight them to push for future systems and funding, is a very lengthy discussion, but irrelevant to the fact its sources are probably of similar quality or identical to CNN's sources, and can be cited in the lead. Doeze (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I would also note no alternative narrative for the landing has emerged, no sources support a friendly fire incident, no sources support an onboard malfunction, CENTCOM's own statement makes no claims on any of these. Doeze (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

If i may then i'd like to also give out my opinion and some of my knowledge, so basically an intro to an article is meant to only be a short description while it is okay to say that "the F-35 first saw combat in that war and also participated in this war" listing its first ever interception is simply too detailed and is normally placed on the main body of the article, because once again an intro is just a short description of what the aircraft is and its history. Someone-who-like-history (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Someone-who-like-history I agree it is rarely correct for the lead, however as this is a combat aircraft with stealth being the central part of design philosophy, with large fleets in many countries, how many times the aircraft has been combat intercepted is very relevant to be lead, much more relevant than if Switzerland ordered some etc. Doeze (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

That is true but dont get me wrong i agree that it is phenomenal for such an advanced and widely used aircraft to be intercepted and yes as you said it is rarely correct to put such info in a lead including in this article so perhaps just say "the F-35 participated in the 2026 Iran conflict where 1 was intercepted" rather than a much more detailed one like your initial edit which i saw a simmiliar mentioning on the F-117 page about its 1999 shootdown which was inserted onto the intro but once again just a mention of the shootdown of the F-117 rather than a detailed info where the article said "F-117s also participated in the conflict in Yugoslavia, during which one was shot down" so that is my suggestion just a small mentioning rather than a detailed one. Someone-who-like-history (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Someone-who-like-history I'm fine with a shorter wording but it should maintain the mention of it as the first combat interception. Doeze (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

yes that is what i meant a shorter wording of the mentioning of the interception such as "the F-35 participated in the 2026 Iran conflict where 1 was intercepted. Someone-who-like-history (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

"Intercepted" could be interpreted in many ways, ranging from simply being diverted from its target by enemy action to being shot down. Perhaps a more precise "damaged in combat" would be better? - ZLEA ^TǀC 14:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree just as you said intercepted can mean many things so i suppose damaged in combat is a better option, my bad here. Someone-who-like-history (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

All sources seem to agree on surface-to-air missile being most likely and ruling out air-to-air fire or ground gunfire, so that would probably be the most concise way to clarify. I agree it is important to not create confusion with a hypothetical non-combat aerial interdiction by some adversary. Doeze (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest "likely damaged by Iranian ground fire" Doeze (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Well based on video footage it appears to be a single fast moving projectile from the ground, so yeah it is most likely to be a surface to air missile. Someone-who-like-history (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest In March 2026, a US F-35 flying a combat mission in Iran was damaged, reportedly by Iranian ground fire, and made an emergency landing at a US base. (i.e. <ref name="airMag" /><ref name="scmpIran" /><ref name="iranCNN" />)

@NonCredibleDefense, @Swatjester, @GordonGlottal, @McSly, following the previous discussion, do you have any thoughts on the use of these sources in the lead? Doeze (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

The sources and sentence as crafted above are fine; however without context as to why the emergency landing is meaningful, in my opinion it doesn't really work for the lead (it'd be fine in the body) as what makes it a significant point meriting inclusion in the lead is that it's a first. Even then, I'm not sure it merits inclusion, but it's not a hill I care to die on.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:06, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Would you accept In March 2026, the aircraft was first damaged in combat, when a US F-35 in Iran was hit, reportedly by Iranian ground fire, and made an emergency landing at a US base. ? Doeze (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it in the lede yet. Let's wait a couple weeks and see if there's any new reporting. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think there will be any. Between CNN, NPR, and Air and Space Forces Magazine I think all the sources that could have talked already have. But I think that breadth should suffice. Plus the cycle has moved on with more recent alleged F-15 shootdowns and F/A-18 damages. Doeze (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed recent events in the war has taken over the media focus with new reports being of the recent F-18 hits by Iran, i will try to add the shootdown in the lead once more but in a shorter form. Someone-who-like-history (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

By all means, it could be mentioned in the same sentence as the first sentence that links to the 2026 Iran war, but should probably still clarify that it was a US F-35 and not an Israeli F-35I. Doeze (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Dont worry the combat history on the lead is divided between nations which i placed the landing on the american one. Someone-who-like-history (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I've reverted this edit by Someone-who-like-history while we're still talking here, but I do admire its brevity. Still, like @GordonGlottal, @Swatjester, and the editors of Wikipedia's other military-aircraft articles, I think "first combat damage" isn't significant enough to merit inclusion in the lead. PRRfan (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree. It is in the lead for the F-117, but in that case, an aircraft was actually shot down, here for all we know at this point, the aircraft may be put back in service after repairs. Also, Someone-who-like-history not sure how you could possibly have thought you had consensus for inclusion last night, --McSly (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

You are right i was wrong to compare an aircraft that was shot down with another that was just damaged this one is on me, so how do you think we all should proceed? Because right now i am out of ideas. Someone-who-like-history (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I am okay with your shorter drafted edit. I would just recommend "where one was first damaged". Reliable sources agree it was damaged. We only need to say "reported" when saying it was Iranian ground fire. Doeze (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe, however i am not sure if we should do that because it makes the mentioning slightly longer and eliminates the shorter mentioning idea. Someone-who-like-history (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it's still many times shorter than mentioning that it was an emergency landing, that it was ground fire, that it was in March, etc Doeze (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

There's also the fact that the F-117 incident was the first ever shootdown of a stealth aircraft as well as the only combat loss of the type, making it exceptionally notable and worthy of inclusion in the lead. The only scenario I can imagine for this incident to be included in the lead is if the F-35 retires and this remains the only time it was intercepted and damaged in combat. - ZLEA ^TǀC 13:42, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Equally for all we know the aircraft may be considered a total loss and never fly again. We should write the lead based on what reliable sources say, that this is the only combat to have grounded a stealth fighter in the 21st century. Doeze (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd also point out there is a big difference between "aircraft hit and continues its mission uninterrupted", and "aircraft hit, pilot sustains shrapnel wounds, makes emergency hard landing", the latter has much more in common with a shootdown. Doeze (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

References

UK order completed

The UK has received the last of its 48-aircraft order, given the loss of one it now has 47 total:

• https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/2026/04/uk-receives-last-f-35b-from-initial-48-aircraft-acquisition/
• https://www.airdatanews.com/uk-receives-final-f-35b-fighter-from-initial-48-aircraft-order/

Given that there should be an update, although the UK section seems extensive and complicated. Is there even any confirmation that 3 of its aircraft are still in the US for testing and training as of 2026?--RM (Be my friend) 20:28, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Lead armament

Armament is a pretty important topic that should get at least one line in the lead imo. I previously suggested Common bomb bay armaments the GBU-31 bombs and AIM-120 AMRAAM missile. as per the ref these are tied for the most number of countries operating them. However in terms of impact I also think the JASSM might be worth mentioning. Doeze (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing your suggestion here for discussion. A discussion of armament is vital to the article, of course, but too much detail for the intro. It's not as if carrying AMRAAM/JASSM/GBUs distinguishes the F-35 from other US strike fighters; the intro would sooner mention, say, its unique DAS-and-helmet system. PRRfan (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, but the F-35 is not just a US fighter, carrying AMRAAM does distinguish it from the global inventory and is relevant as its primary air-to-air combat tool. I would not oppose mentioning the helmet as a unique system, except a separate article or section on that seems to be lacking. Doeze (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, neither should be in the intro, which is quite long enough already.

I'd also argue that this should be excised—"Belgium, Germany, Italy, and the UK plan to buy nuclear-capable F-35As; Israel's F-35Is may be able to deliver Israeli nuclear weapons"; the first clause describes events that have not yet come to pass, and the second remains speculation. PRRfan (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

References

Why do you keep putting Asian countries last?

Why do you keep putting Asian countries last when listing countries? ~2026-32001-69 (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

What list are you referring to? The list of operators is alphabetical. - ZLEA ^TǀC 09:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I see you were referring to the lead, which also lists the operators alphabetically. - ZLEA ^TǀC 09:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Reassessment from GA status

In the 6 years since the article got promoted to GA status, I think it's worth taking another assessment since lots of new information has been added, and the additions and revisions have not all maintained the same quality. I intend to do a formal reassessment (pending time availability) but my first hunch is that this article no longer meets GA standards. Steve7c8 (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Listing of weapons in the armament section that aren't operational yet

I'm noticing that quite a few weapons are listed in the armament subsection of Specifications that are not yet operational and in many cases are years away pending integration. These include the AIM-260 JATM, HACM, Meteor, SiAW, to name a few. These should be removed, IMO, because to use the JATM as an example, if the inaugural launch platform for IOC, the F-22, doesn't have it listed, then it shouldn't be listed here either. Steve7c8 (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)