New fighter likely to land at S.C. bases

The State ^ | Jan. 25, 2009 | CHUCK CRUMBO

[Jet Jaguar]

Three military bases in South Carolina are likely to become future homes for the F-35 fighter.

The jet still is under development. But its manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, is building three versions that can be used by the Air Force, Marines and Navy.

The first test models are expected to roll out of the company’s Fort Worth, Texas, plant in May or June. Shaw Air Force Base reportedly is on that service’s “short list” to receive the first F-35s, which will replace the F-16 Fighting Falcons now at Shaw. But it probably will be 2012 before the fighter lands in South Carolina, spokesmen said.

The S.C. Air National Guard, which flies a similar version of the F-16 based at Shaw, also is slated to receive the F-35 at its nearby McEntire Joint National Guard Base.

The F-35, a single-seat, single- engine plane with radar-evading stealth capabilities, also is slated to replace the F/A-18 Hornets that the Navy and Marines fly.

Marine Corps Air Station- Beaufort, where a Navy and six Marine F/A-18 squadrons are based, expects to see its first F-35 in 2012 or 2013, a spokesman said.

The impact the F-35s will have on local bases remains to be seen. The jet is louder than the F-16, said Tom Olsen, a retired Shaw commander and chief of Sumter’s efforts to keep that base open. “There’ll be some change in the noise contour, but it’s not going to be oppressive,” Olsen said.

Regardless, communities should work to steer “the wrong kind of development” from locating near the bases, said George Patrick III, executive coordinator of the S.C. Military Base Task Force. One example of the “wrong kind” of development would be allowing housing subdivisions and apartment complexes near runways, officials said.

An option being considered at Beaufort is to build a remote airstrip where pilots could do extensive training before deploying, said Gunnery Sgt. Chad McMeen.

“We want to be proactive,” McMeen said.

Each F-35 is expected to cost $80 million to $90 million, about four times the cost of a new F-16 equipped with the latest electronic gear. The Pentagon plans to buy 2,458 planes for the Air Force, Navy and Marines at a total cost of almost $300 billion. That is 43 percent higher than the initial estimate, released in 2001.

[Jet Jaguar]

Ping

[bill1952]

Each F-35 is expected to cost $80 million to $90 million, about four times the cost of a new F-16...

So, is each one of these birds worth 4 F-16s equipped with the latest electronic gear?

I know what the Pukin Dog would have said.

[Eye of Unk]

I bet Obama will find an excuse real soon to cut back production.

[NTHockey]

>>An option being considered at Beaufort is to build a remote airstrip where pilots could do extensive training before deploying, said Gunnery Sgt. Chad McMeen. <<

What’s wrong with the back runway where VMF(AW)-112 was headquartered? F4H Phantoms used it before they were put in service. Damn afterburners would split your head open (especially after a binge).

[PAR35]

I know what the Pukin Dog would have said.

According to him, it would have been canceled several years back. He bailed from FR before he had to eat his words.

[upchuck]

South Carolina Ping

Add me to the list. / Remove me from the list.

[bill1952]

He didn’t say that several years back.
I doubt he even knew of it then.

He did say is that it would not get into production, but that isn’t why he left us.

[coloradan]

My understanding of these planes is that they consistently win dogfights when outnumbered 9-1 by F-15s or F-16s.

[coloradan]

So, why did he leave?

[IGOTMINE]

F35 Bump!

[PAR35]

Well, I could dig for one of his more direct comments (where he predicted a cancellation date) but this will have to do for now:

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

---

To: Mr. Silverback

I'll say this once, but don't ask me for follow up, as I am really tired of the ensuing arguments. The F-35 will be canceled. It will never make it into operational service. I have said this, and maintained that for more than a year that the aircraft cannot perform its intended mission. When the time comes to fish or cut bait, that baby is getting knifed.

People want to know how I know this, but it is something I cannot answer without having my information sources cut off forever. So, I tell people to "just wait".

31 posted on 08/25/2005 12:06:51 PM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)

[Pukin Dog]

I'll say this once, but don't ask me for follow up, as I am really tired of the ensuing arguments. The F-35 will be canceled. It will never make it into operational service. I have said this, and maintained that for more than a year that the aircraft cannot perform its intended mission. When the time comes to fish or cut bait, that baby is getting knifed.

[Proud_USA_Republican]

The F-16 was introduced over 30 years ago and is still scheduled to be in service of the US Air Force until 2025.
But a next generation replacement needs to be there to takeover eventually.
The F-35 also has vertical takeoff & carrier based versions and stealth capabilities that the F-16 lacks.

[SC Swamp Fox]

South Carolina Ping

Add me to the list. | Remove me from the list.

[PAR35]

Here you go - a 2004 prediction that it would be canceled before the end of 2005:

“You will hear stuff next year after the JSF is canceled “...
33 posted on Fri 08 Apr 2005 10:53:58 PM GMT-8 by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1379699/posts

[DesScorp]

"I bet Obama will find an excuse real soon to cut back production."

And if he does, it'll be one of the few things I agree with him on. The F-35 is an uber-expensive white elephant plane that's mostly less capable than the planes it'll be replacing. I'd much rather USAF buy updated F-16's, and the Navy just buy more Super Hornets. The only... only platform that the F-35 will be a noticeable improvement over is the Harrier, and even that's debatable in some respects. Knowing how tight Navy budgets traditionally are, the Marines may never see the F-35 in service, not for 90+ million a copy. This is the service that is still recycling their old Huey's and Super Cobra's, after all.

[Eye of Unk]

I too agree with you, if any platform that has proven itself valuable to the men on the ground its the Warthog, and that the plane thats had the most difficult time to get money for to keep it alive.

Its just not “sexy” enough so it gets shitcanned.

[DesScorp]

"My understanding of these planes is that they consistently win dogfights when outnumbered 9-1 by F-15s or F-16s."

Where are you getting this? One of the big knocks against the F-35 is that it's turning out to be a piss-poor fighter. The Australians are evaluating it for purchase, and in their simulations against Su-27 derivatives, it was, and I quote, "clubbed like a baby seal".

Pierre Spey, the chief designer of the F-16 and A-10, says that the F-35 is shaping up to be an absolutely lousy fighter... poor wing loading, poor vertical acceleration, inferior cockpit visibility compared to the teen-series of fighters, among other things.

[flowerplough]

Each F-35 is expected to cost $80 million to $90 million, about four times the cost of a new F-16...

So, is each one of these birds worth 4 F-16s equipped with the latest electronic gear?

Short answer: No. Long answer: No f'ing way.

This mega-tech, mega-mega priced, fifth-gen, jack-of-all-trades fighter is little more than a magnificent anachronism, a Noble Steed for today’s Chivalrous, Frivolous Knight of the Air - ready, willing, and able to re-win World War II, but too expensive, valuable, vulnerable, and rare to actually forward-deploy to the same continent that my National Guard daughter now inhabits.

[bill1952]

> a 2004 prediction that it would be canceled before the end of 2005:

I remember that comment.
This was my post to you:

“He didn’t say that several years back.”
and so he did not. He did say it 4-5 years ago.

Actually, I miss him, but he wasn’t always correct.
Or wrong.