Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II
All-weather?
Aren’t most planes weatherproof? As a layman, the inclusion of “all-weather” in the lede is puzzling, especially as there’s no other mention of “weather” in the article and no link for context. I gather from a search of the Talk archives that the plane has been accused of being vulnerable to lightning (ironic or what?), and this could be in response to that accusation? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
All-weather means the planes are equipped with better radar systems allowing them to perform operations in poor weather and/or night operations. It’s an evolution of the night-fighter from WW2 since the radar systems on night fighters also gave them the capabilities to operate in poor weather conditions compared to the contemporary “standard” fighters.
I object to this on the grounds that knowing things that make Anerikkkan failures less funny is revisionist.
What’s the point of that if it rusts when it rains, it’s like giving audiophile 1500$ headphones to a dead person
throw in a [citation needed] behind that one and see what happens
You done kicked over a hornet’s nest at the Pentagon, buddy.
what are they gonna do threaten to crash an F-35 into my bedroom?
Don’t worry about it, it will end up hitting your neighbors house instead.
And link the article on War Thunder forums.
All-weather is a category of attack and fighter aircraft and it’s a normal description to use. It basically means it’s meant to perform its mission at night and in bad weather/visibility. Not just that it’s capable of flying in poor weather. Though I think any modern fighter or attacker would have very advanced night fighting capabilities.
Edit: According the Wikipedia, the F-16 was originally designed a day fighter.
lol. I only recently discovered Wikipedia talk pages. They can be a good source of entertainment.
The Stanley Kubrick infobox drama is classic.
Stanley Kubrick Gets His Infobox : wikipedia
Nov 17, 2021
Noticed this too the other day haha. I was so surprised how the editors came into agreement last month, especially since I discovered the whole infobox fiasco no more than two months ago. Surprised tf out of me how much crazy drama Wikipedia editors have over the simplest things.
Also checked out the page’s edit history and found out that the infobox was removed on August 16, 2015. The fact it really took them more than 6 years worth of internet arguments and debates to add back a bio summary box sounds insane lmao
Getting too deep into this topic will drive you to madness. Glad it’s finally resolved. The whole debacle was foolish and self-inflicted.
His talk page is 15 pages. The drama went on an on and on.
Throw a “rotating bolt” in there and see if anyone notices
praxis
lmao at the username being “AlmostReadyToFly”.
