F-35 Declared Operational

[MED]

About time!



http://www.wired.com/2015/07/f-35-fi...-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.

[Ridge]

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!

[MED]

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]

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.

[Gman]

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

[TheGrey]

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...

[HoneyBadger]

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.

[Gman]

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.

[wyome]

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.