Posted on 11/16/2013 9:13:16 AM PST by Sequoyah101
The Air Force is offering big bonuses to keep its pilots in the service, but they’re not taking them because budget constraints are forcing the service to limit both current flying hours and opportunities to fly the next generation of aircraft,...
(Excerpt) Read more at defenseone.com ...
They probably get disciplined for getting a lock during war games and saying, "Gonna shove one up his ass". Applying PC standards to fighter pilots is akin to suffocating them and removing their stress vents which keep them sane and competent.
The selling point was the F-35 would be LO.
It will not in most configurations, especially USMC configurations.
Oh, I get what you are saying; the program bidding process was flawed, not the actual program (tanker) itself.
The lease was a crime, worked out between very senior Boeing execs (went to jail) and a corrupt AF Sec trolling for a Boeing job for her, her daughter and her daughter’s husband.
The Sec was prosecuted, the daughter fired (woefully incompetent recent college grad hired at a senior executive level), but the husband is a good engineer and remains with Boeing.
The crime was discovered when internal Boeing people turned in the leadership for the violations.
Yes, the procurement process has been a failure. It should have been pretty simple to get a much needed tanker replacement in a whole lot less time than it took.
Pretty shameful affair wasn’t it?
I still don’t think much of the F-35 though. It is a force fit. Every time someone defends it they have to make excuses for it. e.g. “it can carry a bigger load externally but it is no longer LO”. It does not do what it was supposed to do. It is also hurt by short range and say what you may about engine reliability, the Navy and their pilots liked the Scooter but would have liked it a whole lot more if it had two engines. What makes it more insulting is that Lockheed lobbied to shut down their own F-22 production run in favor of the much more profitable F-35. They did it for money and no other reason. I can’t imagine there was not some hanky panky going on there as well.
Good points, though I disagree about the shutting of the F-22 line.
Point taken though I feel more research into the matter would suggest otherwise. It was a furball of agendas though and so just about anything could have happened.
Thank you for a civil debate of the issues. Let’s both declare victory and move on to something else?
Cheers, my FRiend, and see you around the threads.
“The selling point was the F-35 would be LO.
It will not in most configurations, especially USMC configurations.”
I kept up to date on F22 and F35 capabilities early in the process. I haven’t kept ujp with every update on the aircraft, but all I recall is that the designation for the F35 went from VLO to LO...Very Low Observable to Low Observable.
I have read nothing that the Marine F35B variant is not LO.
Perhaps there is new info out there and I haven’t read it.
If you have and links to this, I’d love to see it.
No worries.
External load-outs for CAS mission is part of its major LO failing.
The F-35 can’t carry a munition load for CAS solely internally, not for a loitering multiple-pass CAS mission, and this means it loses any sort of “LO” capability.
(”LO” meaning 5th Generation.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouT1qtgY9qQ
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2012/february/120220ae_f-35a-conducts-external-weapons-test.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pictures-f-35-bulks-up-with-external-weapons-load-368548/
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/joint-strike-fighter-13-flaws/ (”Most ominously, the report mentions — but does not describe — a “classified” deficiency. “Dollars to doughnuts it has something to do with stealth,” aviation guru Bill Sweetman wrote. In other words, the F-35 might not be as invisible to radar as prime contractor Lockheed Martin said it would be.”)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-design.htm: “”But the F-35. . .and it is not as stealthy as the F-22.”
Many more links out there, but the fact is, it must carry on external hard-points, JASSM and JDAMs or SDBs to have a CAS weapons load. . .and that means external carry and that means loss of LO.
I’ll read these, as I like to keep an open mind.
But as I’ve stated before, once you are in a close air support mission, there is no need for Low Observable, we would have air superiority, and thus we would load with max external weapons for that role. Our A10 CAS aircraft was not LO. The F35 is LO when only using internal loads. And with it’s advanced AESA and DAS, it could bug out if an unexpected threat were to come.
So, I don’t see your overall point.
The point is the F-35 was advertised as LO and is not.
If we don’t have air supremacy, you say “once you are in a close air support mission, there is no need for Low Observable, we would have air superiority.”
Does this mean you are saying our troops are out of luck if we don’t have control of the skies?
The last time US troops came under attack from enemy air was in Korea, but in future conflicts, are we that sure that US troops will never be under attack from enemy aircraft? Are you saying if we don’t control the skies, our troops will just have to take a pounding from enemy CAS?
Flying the A-10 back in the day, we practiced all the time A/A as a means to get to the target and possibly engage enemy air (A/G or A/A platforms) while protecting our own troops.
While the A-10 is a fantastic jet and fully capable in a permissive environment, it was also designed to operate within a high threat environment against the Soviets, and to do that, A-10 tactics evolved to fly very low. You fly low when the A/A and some SAM threats made you fly low, otherwise, absent an A/A threat, you fly high (see Gulf War I).
The major selling point of the F-35 was to BE LO, to function within a high-threat environment where LO is required/necessary. Clearly, in the CAS role it cannot. And that was the point.
To underscore my point, the F-35 was sold as a replacement for the F-16, Harrier and A-10. None of those platforms are LO, and in the case of the A-10, the F-35 is hardly as capable when it comes to CAS weapons delivery (missiles, GUN and bombs).
Unexpected threats are out there, that is why they are called “unexpected.” And like the F-35, if an unexpected threat does arise, then the A-10 can bug out as well if necessary. CAS pilots are not that type, usually, as the reflected by the number of MoH earned by A/G pilots during Vietnam (5), and on a personal note, Steve Phyllis (http://airforce.togetherweserved.com/usaf/servlet/tws.webapp.WebApp?cmd=ShadowBoxProfile&type=Person&ID=89212, former student of mine).
So, what does the CAS F-35 give us that the A-10 does not?
LO? No. Weapons capability? No. Loiter time to affect the Ground Order of Battle? No. Survivability if hit? Unknown but hardly as robust as the A-10 and its triple redundant flight control systems and basic design.
Basiclly, ref LO, the F-35 was sold as LO and it is not.
Cheers, my FRiend.
Sorry, that statement is incorrect...the F35 has 2 configurations...one of which is LO, first strike.
The other, once AAD and other threats are neutralized, is CAS, bomb truck mode..."unclean".
Not so.
The statement stands: “Basically, ref LO, the F-35 was sold as LO and it is not”
And I am out of here. Got to go. . .
Who cares? Once air superiority has been established and AAD are neutralized, it doesn't matter if the jet is LO or not. Take a look at DS/DS. Stealth, missiles, etc. played a major role in neutralizing many threats so the "naked" jets could do their jobs in the CAS roles.
Again, the aircraft is being designed for multiple roles (I don't neccessarily agree with that, but it is what it is.).
First Strike capability demands LO, CAS, doesn't.
IOW, you made the assertion, I'm asking you to prove it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.