Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Jump to content

Talk:Lockheed Martin X-35

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BilCat (talk | contribs) at 18:40, 15 June 2007 (Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconAviation: Aircraft Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Number Built

There were more than 2 were built, wasn't there? One for each variant? X360 11:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the text, under Variants/F-35A: The X-35A was converted into the X-35B for the VSTOL part of the competition. One X-32 was also converted, I believe the X-32A into X-32C (Naval). - BillCJ 16:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. Thanks for that Bill. :) X360 21:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JAST

According to FAS.org the X-35 was developed during the JAST project, not the JSF project? - Maarten 22:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The JAST became the JSF in 1995. Check the Joint Strike Fighter Program page for more info on this. Btw, that's an old page on FAS, dated Updated Tuesday, February 10, 1998 5:16:45 AM at the bottom. The [JSF page] on that site also has good info, and was last updated in 2005. - BillCJ 00:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes JAST became JSF but the X-35 was originally designed for JAST, the article seems to skip that project entirely. Unless I've overlooked something. Ah well maybe I'm too much of a nitpicker. Maarten 00:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

confusing

when it says "Status: retired (museum)", it's not supposed to be retired. it has just been developed. also, i heard numerous times on The Discovery channel, they say it WILL/IS active in service. someone that works with airplanes or has something to do with it, please dig out the right information and change it. XU-engineer 19:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are referring to the F-35 Lightning II follow-on, which is currently undergoing flight testing. The two original X-35s have been retired, are no longer in active testing, and are currently in museums, per the text.

Summary

Who ever wrote this knows little or nothing about this subject. i dont mean to use this in a harmful way, but just to make him/her/them "notice" that they have wrote the wrong things.

This article is either a stub or a start rating. XU-engineer 19:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific: What particlular points are you objecting to, as there is no section entitled "summary"? This article was written by many editors, and eventually became the F-35 Lightning II page. A few editors and I streamlined the F-35 page by removing the X-35 info, and put that information here. It may not be totally accurate, but if you aren't specific about wha you feel is wrong, I have no way of knowing what the problems are. - BillCJ 19:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Yes. thank you. why do they name the airplanes X-35 and F-35? To confuse us? XU-engineer 18:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X and F are two different series in the US DOD designation system (X-Experimental; F-Fighter). The last fighter in the "F" series was the YF-23, so the next number should have been F-24. However, the USAF decided to keep the number "35", so the X-35 became the F-35. THe X-35 and F-35 aren't exactly the same, as the F-35 features many improvements over the X-35. In addition, the X-35 and Boeing X-32 were primarily concept demonstrators, and not intended to be armed, while the F-35 will be combat-capable. Hope this helps. - BillCJ 18:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]