2
2
0
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/defense/air-space/2015/07/31/f35-operational-marine-corps-joint-strike-fighter/30937689/
Looks like the F-35 has finally made it to some form of operational status. It is still missing a large chunk of its promised capability (which will be available in ~2 years) but what do you think about having reached this milestone?
Looks like the F-35 has finally made it to some form of operational status. It is still missing a large chunk of its promised capability (which will be available in ~2 years) but what do you think about having reached this milestone?
F-35
Aviation
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 14
3
3
0
2
2
0
TSgt (Join to see) I literally lol when I read the article. From everything I have read that airframe is not combat ready by a long shot. IMO people are trying to say it is to cover their asses. Now the F-22 is combat ready and IMO we should have built a bunch more. Yes it costs more but we could have kept on building them instead of throwing away billions of dollars on the cost over runs on the F-35. People are just building their portfolio for when they get out.
(2)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
SGM Steve Wettstein the part of this whole story that got my funny bone was when I found out that the Marine Corps had earlier said, "The F-35 B will definately be in initial operational status at some point in July." If we look at the date on the article, they meet their deadline.
Technically.
Technically.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
"Operational" is very mission specific. When we're talking about using it as a Recon asset, it may be Operational. If we're talking about CAS, that is another story. Keep in mind, the (current) USMC mission specs are completely different than the USAF or USN mission specs.
Although my gut reaction was very similar to that of our USAF brethren MSgt Mike Mikulski & MSgt Curtis Ellis, I had to rethink it from Gen Dunford's perspective. The bird is very likely doing what is is "supposed" to do, within the confines of the contract. That doesn't mean what we "want" it to do, or what we are replacing (the A10) does.
Although my gut reaction was very similar to that of our USAF brethren MSgt Mike Mikulski & MSgt Curtis Ellis, I had to rethink it from Gen Dunford's perspective. The bird is very likely doing what is is "supposed" to do, within the confines of the contract. That doesn't mean what we "want" it to do, or what we are replacing (the A10) does.
(2)
(0)
SGM Steve Wettstein
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - Brother it is going to take a lot to replace the A-10 and IMO this plane is not it.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SGM Steve Wettstein I don't think we can "replace" the A10. The A10 is a beast. It's a beautiful bird which is perfectly fitted for its mission.
But... the F35, as a "philosophic construct" is a good idea. Having a "Versatile Airframe Platform" which we can outfit all three services which use fixed winged aircraft just makes sense. It's just like having a common service rifle. The Airframe is a Pilot's "Service Rifle." The F35 is our first attempt at making a Air "M16."
No, it's not perfect, yet. The A10 is the M1 Garand. It was the Beast, which just didn't make sense to replace. But the M16 has a lot of advantages... But how many variants have we gone through with it? The M16A1 of the Vietnam era needed changes. The A2 is being phased out now, and we are now looking at the M4. We're getting "closer" to the universal solution.
But... the F35, as a "philosophic construct" is a good idea. Having a "Versatile Airframe Platform" which we can outfit all three services which use fixed winged aircraft just makes sense. It's just like having a common service rifle. The Airframe is a Pilot's "Service Rifle." The F35 is our first attempt at making a Air "M16."
No, it's not perfect, yet. The A10 is the M1 Garand. It was the Beast, which just didn't make sense to replace. But the M16 has a lot of advantages... But how many variants have we gone through with it? The M16A1 of the Vietnam era needed changes. The A2 is being phased out now, and we are now looking at the M4. We're getting "closer" to the universal solution.
(1)
(0)
(1)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
PO2 Brian Rhodes, our leaders seem to forget that we are $18.329 trillion in debt. It is past time that we need to think about our country's finances and about doing what's right by America instead of doing what benefits special interests [such as the Military Industrial Complex]. Just my opinion.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I am concerned about its lack of close air to air prowess. We predicate our offense and defense on air superiority.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
This is what the Brits have to say about it:
Marines say F-35B that can't fire its own weapons ready for service
The declaration means that the squadron of 10 F-35Bs stationed with Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 in Yuma, Ariz., are 'ready for worldwide deployment,' the Marine Corps said in a statement.
(1)
(0)
SGM Steve Wettstein
Capt Jeff S. Great article Sir. For those that don't want to read the entire thing here is the British part.
The Royal Air Force has so far ordered eight F-35s to be delivered by next year.
The jets were meant to enter service in 2012, but Sir Nick Harvey, who served as the Minister of State for Armed Forces between 2010 and 2012, said that there was 'not a cat in hell's chance' that the jet would be in British service by 2018. 'I don't recall…having heard anyone suggesting that these things could be used in combat before 2020.'
In total, Britain is expected to purchase 138 of the jets from the US, but at present costs that would add up to a total of $19billion. The delays and escalating costs mean that once the British Tornado jets – which have been in service since 1979 - are retired in three years' time, the UK will be left with an 'offensive capacity' of just 60 planes.
But the UK is not the only country waiting for the costly fighter jet to be fixed.
The Royal Air Force has so far ordered eight F-35s to be delivered by next year.
The jets were meant to enter service in 2012, but Sir Nick Harvey, who served as the Minister of State for Armed Forces between 2010 and 2012, said that there was 'not a cat in hell's chance' that the jet would be in British service by 2018. 'I don't recall…having heard anyone suggesting that these things could be used in combat before 2020.'
In total, Britain is expected to purchase 138 of the jets from the US, but at present costs that would add up to a total of $19billion. The delays and escalating costs mean that once the British Tornado jets – which have been in service since 1979 - are retired in three years' time, the UK will be left with an 'offensive capacity' of just 60 planes.
But the UK is not the only country waiting for the costly fighter jet to be fixed.
Marines say F-35B that can't fire its own weapons ready for service
The declaration means that the squadron of 10 F-35Bs stationed with Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 in Yuma, Ariz., are 'ready for worldwide deployment,' the Marine Corps said in a statement.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Having been there and done that in the CH-53E program, I'd describe this as typical for a new aircraft. I am a plank owner in HMH-466, and we were the first squadron to really use the aircraft to its stated capabilities--464 and 465 had the misfortune of having to find most of the problems with the airframe (and there were many of them). The CH-53E took most of a decade to really come into its own.
Part of the F-35's problem is the lead letter: "F." It was never really intended to be a fighter in the way the F-22 is. It is supposed to be an attack airframe, but the USAF has a HUGE problem with the "A" designator. Note that the F-105, F-111, and F-117 were intended for the strike mission, and were never intended to be fighters, so they hung "F" on it and ended up mismanaging the expectations.
121 has a very good heritage, and I'm pretty sure they'll do their best to live up to it.
Part of the F-35's problem is the lead letter: "F." It was never really intended to be a fighter in the way the F-22 is. It is supposed to be an attack airframe, but the USAF has a HUGE problem with the "A" designator. Note that the F-105, F-111, and F-117 were intended for the strike mission, and were never intended to be fighters, so they hung "F" on it and ended up mismanaging the expectations.
121 has a very good heritage, and I'm pretty sure they'll do their best to live up to it.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Hopefully it is safer than the Osprey was when it first was declared operational.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
If I said what I think about the F-35 I would sure as little green apples get relieved.
Walt
Walt
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google