View Full Version : F-35 Declared Operational
jhood001
07-31-2015, 16:05
About time!
THE FIRST SQUADRON of F-35B Lightning II fighter jets have been declared operational, Reuters reports (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/31/us-lockheedmartin-fighter-idUSKCN0Q51QZ20150731) ahead of an expected official announcement later today.
http://www.wired.com/2015/07/f-35-fighter-jet-finally-ready-combat/
About time.....I wanna see a squadron do CAS, OCA, and DCA all at once.....hehe
Aardvark
07-31-2015, 16:38
They need to paint a great big, wrinkly, old looking pig on the sides/nose/tail; as long as it took, as much as it costs, and as overweight as it became, an old piggy bank would be appropriate.
About time!
http://www.wired.com/2015/07/f-35-fighter-jet-finally-ready-combat/
Great! ...a solid step backward in US air superiority is now official! The Vietnam lesson might come back to bite them in the ass again.
airborneranger
07-31-2015, 19:36
Just for the Marines. The AF will have to wait another four years. I am sure that will be enough time to kill the A10.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Zombie Steve
07-31-2015, 22:24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HrKnF0dwqQ
Great! ...a solid step backward in US air superiority is now official! The Vietnam lesson might come back to bite them in the ass again.
The F-35 isn't meant to be a fighter. It's an attack plane, supposed to replace the F/A-18, AV-8B and theoretically the A-10. The F-22 is the Air Superiority bird.
Besides, the F-35 has a gun. It just doesn't have the software to use it!
The F-35 isn't meant to be a fighter. It's an attack plane, supposed to replace the F/A-18, AV-8B and theoretically the A-10. The F-22 is the Air Superiority bird (and they cut production of them at 187 in favor of the F35; 187 is not nearly enough to phase out the F15).
Besides, the F-35 has a gun. It just doesn't have the software to use it!
The jack of all trades and master of none really applies to this thing. It is a multi-role strike fighter that doesn't do too much as well as the various aircraft it replaces; the most ridiculous being the replacement for the A-10. It really is ridiculous that the armed services plan to consolidate their operations on this aircraft platform.
HoneyBadger
08-01-2015, 10:33
The jack of all trades and master of none really applies to this thing. It is a multi-role strike fighter that doesn't do too much as well as the various aircraft it replaces; the most ridiculous being the replacement for the A-10. It really is ridiculous that the armed services plan to consolidate their operations on this aircraft platform.
Having some first hand experience with some of the tech inside the F-35, I definitely wouldn't say that it's the master of none. Sure, it isn't designed for strafing tanks, but flight and engagement software is leaps and bounds ahead of anything else out there. I think anyone that calls it a replacement for the Warthog is fooling themselves, but that doesn't mean that it isn't an incredibly capable aircraft.
I think anyone that calls it a replacement for the Warthog is fooling themselves, but that doesn't mean that it isn't an incredibly capable aircraft.
Capable of what, militarily speaking? Not a great fighter, not a great ground attack aircraft, not a good close air support aircraft...but it's stealthy!
The F-22 is a capable aircraft, but there are only around 200 of them and they're also extremely expensive.
Way too expensive. I'd rather see more aircraft with more capability for that money.
ETA: clarification
Capable of what, militarily speaking? Not a good fighter, not a good ground attack aircraft, not a good close air support aircraft...but it's stealthy!
Way too expensive. I'd rather see more aircraft with more capability for that money.
Well, it sounds incredibly capable of being a money pit...
I'm sure a ton of that money will find its way right back to the politicians that supported it.
Did they get it to stop poisoning the pilots with the emergency O2 supply yet?
HoneyBadger
08-01-2015, 11:44
Capable of what, militarily speaking? Not a good fighter, not a good ground attack aircraft, not a good close air support aircraft...but it's stealthy!
Way too expensive. I'd rather see more aircraft with more capability for that money.
I'm not arguing that it isn't a bloated program that costs far too much for each aircraft. I'm a taxpayer too.
As far as capability, it's hard to quantify because it doesn't have an operational record yet. From what I saw, it is extremely effective at air-to-air and air-to-ground engagements. I don't understand how you can say that it's not a good fighter or ground attack aircraft - What are your qualifications? What is your experience with it? Not a personal attack by any means - I'm just wondering how you've formulated your opinion.
Anyone who knows anything about modern CAS knows that it is dependent on the munitions available and the F-35 can deliver the same guided munitions as an MQ-1/MQ-9, F-16, F-22, F-18, F-15, or A-10. It can deliver those munitions more effectively than an A-10 due to the both onboard tech and the stealth tech. The A-10 is so effective in CENTCOM right now because it has a VERY limited number of threats. Very rarely are A-10s being shot at by SAMs. In a contested theater with a real enemy, SAMs are a huge threat and the F-35 is several orders of magnitude harder to target than the A-10.
Speaking of those munitions, the F-35 can carry more than 18,000lbs of them in it's air-to-ground attack role. The A-10 can only carry 16,000lbs. In an air engagement, the A-10 is extremely vulnerable.
Is the A-10 really badass? Yep. Did I initially join the Air Force to fly the A-10? Yep. Is it easier and cheaper to maintain? Yep. Is it doing the job we need it to do in the theater its in right now? Yep. Do I pee a little bit every time I hear that gun? Maybe...
Is the A-10 the right airframe to fight our future wars? I don't think so. It's served us well, but not every engagement is going to be against an insurgent group in a wasteland. Should we retire the A-10 tomorrow? Definitely not.
HoneyBadger
08-01-2015, 11:46
I'm sure a ton of that money will find its way right back to the politicians that supported it.
This is the same with any program nowadays. It's basically legalized bribery, and it happens every day in the American political system. We can start a whole new thread about that if you want.. [shithitsfan]
SuperiorDG
08-01-2015, 11:52
Did they get it to stop poisoning the pilots with the emergency O2 supply yet?
That was the F22
As far as capability, it's hard to quantify because it doesn't have an operational record yet.
Let's try this response for a 3rd time...damn you Edge browser!
We'll likely find the answer to this if the Israelis start using F-35s. I doubt this country has the intestinal fortitude to use them against an adversary capable of taking out our previous generation fighter aircraft.
Everything else is theoretical.
Anything built to be all things to everyone usually excels in nothing. Please prove me wrong. Exceptionalism in one aspect is sacrificed for other requirements.
The fact that stealth and electronic warfare capabilities are marketed so heavily concerns me that it's air to ground and air to air capabilities aren't where they should be. I'm sure it's pretty good when it's a point-click-and ship engagement beyond visual distance. When you hang a bunch of crap on the wings there goes the stealth and VTOL of the C variant. I'm willing to bet that history shows the F-35 is used primarily in the same role that the F-117 was.
The future of warfare is electronic. If someone were to shutdown the US communications, this society would not be resilient.
The future of air warfare is probably UAVs. In the meantime, a few really expensive aircraft and limited number of pilots can be defeated by sheer numbers and resolve.
That was the F22
There were rumblings about the F35 as well. Lockheed Martin claims that it's a different system NOW, but they had issues in the initial high altitude tests.
I have spent a little time directly involved in Military Aviation.
The F-35 is not a F-15, nor is it an A-10.
This is the first time in a long time Uncle Sam has stopped building planes and training for the last war.
Everyone hated the C-17 when it first came out. And it was a total piece of shit for the first couple years. Now it is one very capable airplane.
The KC-10 was a pain in the ass when Uncle Sam decided to modify a DC-10 to haul trash and gas. Now it is one very capable airplane.
The C-17 also suffered from the new way of building planes. R&D while pumping out planes. It is slow, more expensive and a pain for the guys flying and maintaining the A and B models.
I am looking forward to it. Should be a cool plane to cover our six while we work.
This is what a Bajillion dollars looks like:
60057
BushMasterBoy
08-01-2015, 19:24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miydZXg1NTc
I'm not arguing that it isn't a bloated program that costs far too much for each aircraft. I'm a taxpayer too.
As far as capability, it's hard to quantify because it doesn't have an operational record yet. From what I saw, it is extremely effective at air-to-air and air-to-ground engagements. I don't understand how you can say that it's not a good fighter or ground attack aircraft - What are your qualifications? What is your experience with it? Not a personal attack by any means - I'm just wondering how you've formulated your opinion.
Anyone who knows anything about modern CAS knows that it is dependent on the munitions available and the F-35 can deliver the same guided munitions as an MQ-1/MQ-9, F-16, F-22, F-18, F-15, or A-10. It can deliver those munitions more effectively than an A-10 due to the both onboard tech and the stealth tech. The A-10 is so effective in CENTCOM right now because it has a VERY limited number of threats. Very rarely are A-10s being shot at by SAMs. In a contested theater with a real enemy, SAMs are a huge threat and the F-35 is several orders of magnitude harder to target than the A-10.
Speaking of those munitions, the F-35 can carry more than 18,000lbs of them in it's air-to-ground attack role. The A-10 can only carry 16,000lbs. In an air engagement, the A-10 is extremely vulnerable.
Is the A-10 really badass? Yep. Did I initially join the Air Force to fly the A-10? Yep. Is it easier and cheaper to maintain? Yep. Is it doing the job we need it to do in the theater its in right now? Yep. Do I pee a little bit every time I hear that gun? Maybe...
Is the A-10 the right airframe to fight our future wars? I don't think so. It's served us well, but not every engagement is going to be against an insurgent group in a wasteland. Should we retire the A-10 tomorrow? Definitely not.
Where's the damn LIKE button ?
The F-35 is definitely a multi-role aircraft for the future...
It might not be able to 100% fill all the roles of the a/c it is replacing/augmenting ... but it will damn sure deliver on quite a number of fronts. If you get away from just the bad ass gun the A-10 carries the F-35 does all that and then some. In today's and more importantly tomorrow's net centric warfare, on the fly tasking, data-link using pilots the F-35 will do what many current a/c can't do. That being said there is a time and place for an A-10 strafing role...and this a/c won't fill that gap 100%. Keep a few squadron's of A-10s because the ground troops love them...and they matter the most when the shit hits the fan.
Air Force to Congress: "OK, You Win. We'll Keep the A10 Warthog" (http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/topstories/air-force-to-congress-ok-you-win-well-keep-the-a10-warthog/ar-BBpsyI4)
It's official: The U.S. Air Force is keeping its fleet of A-10 Warthog fighter-bombers -- at least until 2022.
In a statement on Feb. 2 describing the Pentagon's contribution to President Obama's 2017 budget request, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter confirmed Pentagon plans to "maintain more of our 4th-generation fighter and attack jets than we previously planned -- including the A-10, which has been devastating ISIL from the air. The budget defers the A-10's final retirement until 2022."
Granted, between now and then, the Air Force still plans to retire and replace A-10s with newer F-35 stealth fighter jets "on a squadron-by-squadron basis." Still, it seems the worst that A-10 backers have to fear is a gradual retirement of the plane, as opposed to withdrawing the aircraft from the fleet en masse.
2022... or later?
It's even possible the 2022 deadline won't see the end of the A-10. Rep. Martha McSally from Arizona, a retired Air Force A-10 pilot, praised the Air Force's decision: "With A-10s deployed in the Middle East to fight ISIS, in Europe to deter Russian aggression, and along the Korean peninsula, administration officials can no longer deny how invaluable these planes are to our arsenal and military capabilities."
McSally later doubled down on her endorsement of the A-10, insisting: "The U.S. Air Force needs a next-generation A-10 before attempting to mothball any further A-10s" (emphasis added). That suggests the A-10's retirement could be postponed indefinitely.
So what does all this mean for investors?
Wave goodbye to $4 billion worth of F-35s?
Military math
The numbers have shifted over the years, but at last report, the Air Force was saying retiring the A-10 could save it as much as $4 billion in operations and maintenance costs over five years. That's enough money to buy perhaps three dozen or more shiny new Lockheed Martin(NYSE: LMT) F-35A fighter jets.
If not spent on F-35s, these billions of dollars should flow instead to Northrop Grumman(NYSE: NOC), which is the prime contractor for A-10 maintenance work, and Boeing(NYSE: BA), which has a multimillion-dollar contract to upgrade wings on the A-10 fleet. Northrop and Boeing, accordingly, should be pretty pleased with the Pentagon's decision.
Conversely, earmarking these funds for the A-10 means less money available for F-35 purchases. That would suggest that the pace of F-35 buying could slow, which is certainly not good news for Lockheed Martin -- and not just Lockheed Martin. Already, United Technologies(NYSE: UTX) has delivered 100 more F-35 jet engines than Lockheed Martin has delivered actual F-35s. A reduction in the pace of F-35 procurement could throw the engine-to-plane ratio even further out of whack, and threaten to slow the rate at which United Technologies is asked to produce (and be paid for) engines for the F-35.
Another possible knock-on effect: Perhaps the most important line about the F-35 is the one SecDef Carter uttered last week, when he said the Pentagon plans to "maintain more of our 4th generation fighter and attack jets." That statement goes beyond just the A-10. It suggests a Pentagon commitment to keeping (and perhaps even buying?) more of Boeing's F-15s and F/A-18s, instead of buying new F-35s from Lockheed Martin.
True, "4th generation" could also refer to Lockheed Martin's own F-16. So a move to spend more on fourth-generation aircraft, and less on fifth-generation birds, wouldn't be an absolute disaster for Lockheed. But with a hand in upgrading the A-10, and no fewer than two sets of fourth-generation fighter jets ready to fill the gap if fewer F-35s are produced, the clearest beneficiary of any military move to keep fourth-generation fighters flying is Boeing.
Honey Badger282.8
02-21-2016, 16:26
Something I think people fail to realize:
1 US Gen 5 fighter with all the technological wiz-bang...
vs. 5 Chinese Gen 5 fighters (hacked from our blueprints) + 25 Chinese & Russian Gen 4 fighters
= US is going to lose each and every time.
You can have the most technologically advanced flying robot in the world, but if you don't have sufficient numbers of them, you're just pissing away money for no reason.
I'd rather have the 20 "outdated" fighters in production compared to the 1 F-35 for the same cost. I don't see the F-35 ever being cheap enough or produced in sufficient quantity to ever make any tactical difference.
This overlooks the proficiency of those piloting the aircraft.
US doesn't lose because of the pilots, or the aircraft. They only lose when the politicians get involved and start micro-managing $h!t and applying "ROE" that cripples our forces. Fighting to a draw is not fighting. It's losing, appeasing, etc. etc.
Case in point...our capitulator-in-chief actually determined that NASA, yes, NASA, should be involved in muslim outreach. And, no, spell-checker, I won't capitalize muslim.
^-- This is true in our current style of small non direct fights. What foxtrot is pointint out is the worrying scenario is if we ever had a big drag out fight with any of the other big powers. If you take 5 F-35 up vs 20-25 other fighters. I don't think it ends well. Even if they could splash 2 a piece from a standoff distance much further than the others could. Unless in the scenario you are always able to get a few then run away without getting into real engagement, still going to get overwhelmed.
I don't think the differences in the F-35 can provide the kind of lopsided battle you had decades ago with technologically advanced at the time Abrams vs pseudo Antique Iraqi T-xx's.
I can't wait to see the Bernie supporters bitching about how many free degrees this could have funded.
KestrelBike
02-21-2016, 17:24
US doesn't lose because of the pilots, or the aircraft. They only lose when the politicians get involved and start micro-managing $h!t and applying "ROE" that cripples our forces. Fighting to a draw is not fighting. It's losing, appeasing, etc. etc.
Case in point...our capitulator-in-chief actually determined that NASA, yes, NASA, should be involved in muslim outreach. And, no, spell-checker, I won't capitalize muslim.
hah can you imagine how WW2 would have turned out if we had the same ROE that we started adopting 2007,8--> in the middle east? Talk about The Man in the High Castle.
Honey Badger282.8
02-21-2016, 18:32
^-- This is true in our current style of small non direct fights. What foxtrot is pointint out is the worrying scenario is if we ever had a big drag out fight with any of the other big powers. If you take 5 F-35 up vs 20-25 other fighters. I don't think it ends well. Even if they could splash 2 a piece from a standoff distance much further than the others could. Unless in the scenario you are always able to get a few then run away without getting into real engagement, still going to get overwhelmed.
I don't think the differences in the F-35 can provide the kind of lopsided battle you had decades ago with technologically advanced at the time Abrams vs pseudo Antique Iraqi T-xx's.
No flight lead would ever take 5 aircraft against that many aggressors. Sure, another country may be able to have more of a lesser jet for what one F-35 costs but they aren't going to put them up at the same time. The US has the two largest Air Forces in the world and their flight crews get more than 100 hours a year with the sticks.
hah can you imagine how WW2 would have turned out...
Germany had the most technically advanced tanks of WW2. The US and Soviets were able to crank out less advanced tanks in huge numbers. Which strategy won out?
Something I think people fail to realize:
1 US Gen 5 fighter with all the technological wiz-bang...
vs. 5 Chinese Gen 5 fighters (hacked from our blueprints) + 25 Chinese & Russian Gen 4 fighters
= US is going to lose each and every time.
You can have the most technologically advanced flying robot in the world, but if you don't have sufficient numbers of them, you're just pissing away money for no reason.
I'd rather have the 20 "outdated" fighters in production compared to the 1 F-35 for the same cost. I don't see the F-35 ever being cheap enough or produced in sufficient quantity to ever make any tactical difference.
The last I read the US has more fighters and attack aircraft than Russia and China combined. To top it off we're the only ones fielding and operating real 5th generation aircraft. While the Russians and Chinese are working towards fielding their own 5th gen, they are markedly behind the US who is undoubtedly already testing 6th generation fighters. When it comes to air power the US is more than capable of fighting our nearest rivals. Our technology, our training and our tactics are simply better - for now.
No one fields the giant air forces of WWII anymore. Even if the tactics of WWII air warfare still applied (they don''t), no one could afford to field modern warplanes, even gen 4, in those numbers. I don't see the Russians or the Chinese cranking out enough planes to give them a 2 to 1 numerical advantage (which would not give them the edge), let alone 20 to 1. Even with cheaper labor and lesser tech, that would be an incredibly expensive undertaking. Even if they could magically build all those planes, who's going to fly them? You can't crank out competent fighter pilots over night. It takes years, one could argue at least a decade, to train a first class fighter pilot.
Calculated
02-21-2016, 21:34
I think it's more of a chest pounding thing than anything else. With the world's economies tied together like they are, I don't see any major power with advanced aircraft wanting to get into it with anyone else. Biting the lip to spite the face or however the saying goes.
Personally I love the new airplanes, but the money could've been spent more wisely like on vets dying in hospitals etc. Also, I hope they don't retire the A-10 for a long time, my favorite plane since I was a kid.
China can't innovate, there's no free thinking in their society so their ability to think outside the box seems to be significantly dulled. The plans for the next badass Merican fighter plane already exist I'd bet, and are not on computers connected to the Internet. When were these programs announced? Was it 20 years ago?
F-35 you bro!
MERICA!
MERICA!
MERICA!
I'm glad you are patriotic and all. I truly am. MERICA.
However, how is MERICA in twenty or forty years?
Patriotism has nothing to do with it. These are the facts as they stand today. In twenty or forty years - who knows.
Chinese hack our plans for our gen 5 fighters. Within six months they already have their own version flying. And if we are developing a gen 6 then we need to allocate 60% of our GDP to it because we have the most inefficient, ungodly costly, and unnecessarily long development program.
As for hacking - hate to break it to you but the best hackers in the world work for the NSA. That's not patriotism talking, it is simply fact. For everything our enemies steal from us we steal as much, if not more, from them. The difference is we don't advertise our ops in the nightly news unlike our rivals.
I highly doubt they'd have it fully operational in 6 months. Even with stolen plans it takes a lot of logistics and know how to make a new 4th gen aircraft fully operational - let alone 5th gen using tech you stole and need to reverse engineer. It took us 15 years to make the F-22 fully operational - and we developed and understood every aspect of the program. It would take the Chinese or the Russians at least that long to field a new design and they are very competent nations. Advanced weapons are the privy of rich and technologically advanced nations for a reason.
As for inefficiency in military procurement programs - all nations suffer from the same problems. Peacetime military programs are as much political and economic kickbacks as they are national security programs. The Russians and Chinese are no different. Quite possibly, due to their political systems, they are worse.
We have scarified our manufacturing economy to convert it to a service economy. China has converted their economy to a manufacturing economy with far cheaper wages and much more output capacity than we could imagine.
Lets stop pounding our chest and saying MERICA while turning a blind eye to the reality of the future... America as the world superpower is coming to an end. That is shifting to the Asian sphere of influence.
The US is still one of the largest manufacturing nations in the world. We just don't do consumer based products anymore. While we don't make any blu-ray players or cellphones, we sure do seem to make a lot of jet liners and heavy industrial equipment. China does indeed have a large output capacity but that's not because they have some massive technological advantage over the rest of the world. They are the world's low cost producer and so the world chooses to build factories and shift cost-sensitive production there. The US was the same in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. Just as our economy changed so will China's. Someone will eventually be able to build crap more cheaply than the Chinese. When that day happens they are going to find themselves with a lot of manufacturing over-capacity.
As for our time as a superpower coming to an end - yes it is. The world of two super powers was an odd artifact of WWII. The modern world has always been a multi-polar world with regional powers. It is starting to return to the norm. Whether that is good or bad for the US remains to be seen. I think it will be a good thing. This last 70 years of empire has corrupted us politically.
Also bear in mind, when they have carrier killing ballistic missiles that in effect keep us out of operational range of their coastline, with our present situation we really don't have any fighters that can operate carrier based and hit anything in their mainland (or cover bombers).
Yeah, we're developing stuff. But China is catching up and doing so much more efficiently than we are. Realistically I don't forsee any war with them.
Why the assumption we would not, if we haven't already, develop a counter? We're very good at weaponizing technology. As for your assertion that we can't hit the Chinese mainland using our carriers, long range bombers or guided missiles - simply untrue. We could but it definitely wouldn't be the cake-walk we are used to when dealing with enemies with lesser capabilities. But as you said direct warfare with China, or Russia, is highly unlikely. Nuclear armed enemies tend to not want to engage in direct combat for fear of the eventual, and unwinnable, escalation.
That said, it isn't WW2... technology advances are about at their limits. Double the processing power and 30% more stealth really isn't that much of an advancement. It isn't F15 v Mig 21 anymore. The extra ability that 90% spending gets you on a single plane probably only amounts to a 20% tactical advantage.
Math isn't in the F35's favor.
Every generation always seems to think they have reached the pinnacle of technology. They are always wrong. Technology never reaches a limit. It has some slower periods of advancement but it never stays still. And no this isn't the age of the F-15 vs MiG-21. It's the age of the F-22 vs the Su-35. The difference is as meaningful now as it was then. The F-15 was extraordinarily expensive for its time yet no one will argue it served its purpose and was the premier air superiority fighter of its age.
As for the F-35, only time will tell. It has a lot to live up to considering it is meant to replace the F-16, F-18, A-10 and AV-8.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.