F-35 news roundup

[Mr Matt Foley]

16 hours ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

Indeed. We are noble savages, and our opinion is all that matters

 

I would think grunts would be included in the "worked with" category, but hey.

 

The grunts are all in lockstep agreement on this one actually.  We would all rather die than get direct support from anything other than an A-10 there i said it. Literally die. 

 

Harriers actually have superb safety records but grunts on ship like to sabotage them, what's a harrier anyway? We want A-10s not an airshow gimmick.

 

We lost a lot of good men as well with the brutal but important "no casevac unless it's a huey" policy. Skids or bust.

 

It's been really awkward all these years when other platforms show up, and of course there hasn't ever been an A-10 in Marine inventory, so the whole usmc wing is basically a farce. Double awkward since we're a grunt force, by and for grunts (but never bought A-10s?!) The US alsos send other aircraft and even CVNs to the middle east. I have no idea why really. CVNs dont have A-10s. Why do they bother? Boredom? Budget? I have no clue. Why? Why?

 

There is not a single naval aviator wearing those wings of fools gold that has actually provided grunt approved CAS, since the introduction of the A-10 (this is back when it was a tank killer, before it was grunt support king) 

 

And I've lost track of how many troops in contact and CAS engagements always end with "oh so you have ordnance and fuel but aren't an A-10? Well thanks for calling I guess. We'll let you know." 

 

Feel like a real weight is lifted off my shoulders here. Now everyone knows. Not only is the F-35 not an A-10, but nothing else is either. And its A-10s or nothing. So the navy, marines, big air force and of course our allies (not even one A-10 amongst the lot!!) Can stop bothering with the charade now. 

 

The noble grunt has spoken. I speak for all grunts and let it be known, that the F-35 is not grunt approved, and the services had better act accordingly

 

Cancel the test, then cancel the F-35.

 

 

And question. Does the navy consult the USMC, and especially seek out the opinions of 03s before it makes any choices and strategic decisions? Because that's never been my experience. So When did that change? 

 

I dont like being used as a pawn. The "wont someone think of the grunts" argument has become sickening to be honest.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MarkW]

3 hours ago, nspreitler said:

 

 

As someone who has called for a lot of CAS, the A-10 is great, so are the B-1, F-16, F-15E, MQ-1, MQ-9, and many  others.  The Iraqi Air Force did well with Cessna Caravans.   

 

Ah, there you go, bringing practical experience in against long held and loved beliefs. 

 

The real issue isn't who can do CAS, hell, any platform that can carry a weapon can.  Throw in the whole strategic fleet--B-2s and Buffs as well.  It's really about contested CAS.  When those fleets of Soviets ZSU-23s are lining up on you, a F-35 is the last place to be.  ONLY the A-10 could possible survive, because CAS HAS to be done ONLY with a centerline mounted cannon, iron sights, and a steely eyed pilot.

 

I mean you could lase the target, or give precise GPS coordinates to an orbiting bomb truck well outside of MANPAD and AA range, but that's for babies. CAS can ONLY be done like it was in 'Nam.

[TaiidanTomcat]

7 hours ago, 82Whitey51 said:

 

I guess ask them...

Sure other aircraft can provide CAS (sheit a P-3 can) but I know what I'd want...better yet, ask the Taliban 😂🤣

 

 

We aren't being asked because we would tell you other platforms can perform CAS as well and in some cases with advantages over the A-10. So the mic isnt being passed our way, instead in true political fashion we have loudmouth politicians jumping on every trope and stereotype while claiming it's how we feel, and that it's also (inexplicably) unanimous even self evident so theres no need to look into it at all. We watched a certain senator from Arizona actually TELL the military he knew more about their operations than they did. Naturally screwing up several facts in the process. And that was not even questioning a grunt...

 

 

And since we're in ask a grunt mode how do the Taliban feel about the A-10? They love it because it further fetishes a weapon their enemy thinks is effective, but it doesn't control a single village, or hold any actual territory.

 

It's not a new problem.

 

Those A-10 YouTube videos are awesome, and they give us warm fuzzies, but we are losing, And not by a little. We are losing in other ways too, most people dont even consider or fathom.

 

 

Edited July 15, 2018 by TaiidanTomcat

[11bee]

1 hour ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

Those A-10 YouTube videos are awesome, and they give us warm fuzzies, but we are losing, And not by a little. We are losing in other ways too, most people dont even consider or fathom.

 

 

Losing??   The new guy said he’d pretty much have things wrapped up by now.   Shocking to hear talk like this.   Our grandkids will be deploying there.  

 

Can’t believe we are going off on another A-10 mini-thread.  The first 20 of them were enjoyable.  Not so much any more.   Is there any argument pro or con that hasn’t been stated 50 times already?   

[Sabre Freak]

On July 13, 2018 at 4:47 PM, 82Whitey51 said:

 

No...the grunts on the ground.

 

Says he commanded an Infantry Platoon.  That count?

 

https://www.defense.gov/About/Biographies/Biography-View/Article/1055835/james-mattis/

 

Being SecDef kinda makes him the Head Grunt?

 

"The F-35 is critical for our own air superiority, because of its electronics capability inherent to the airplane, which magnifies each individual aircraft's capability,” Mattis said during the hearing. “It is equally important and more so to our allies, because this will be the total strength of their Air Force.”

 

There you have it.  From the Head Grunt himself.  Air Superiority uber alles 

Edited July 15, 2018 by Sabre Freak

[TaiidanTomcat]

13 hours ago, 11bee said:

Losing??   The new guy said he’d pretty much have things wrapped up by now.   Shocking to hear talk like this.  

 

So did the last "new guy" John. Cut the crap. Both sides have had about equal time to crack this nut, plenty of great quotes to throw all around and lots of promises broken. At this point I'll just be happy if ANYONE just stops making it worse. 

 

The whole reason these comparative tests are even being run is because a few years back the boss told the military that iraqistans were a thing of the past and it was time to worry about things elsewhere, which put this ball in motion only to rudely slapped back into reality-- that iraqistans are actually the future, and in more even more places. And we aren't winning. They're only moving and expanding.

 

But you snark away there, and see if we cant get the thread locked.

 

 

I think the A-10 will win in Afghanistan just as much as I think it would have changed Vietnam. 

 

What was that joke you told us in the world war 3 thread.

 

2 Russian generals are sitting in Paris at the end of world war III and one asks the other "who do you think won the air war?"  

 

And the other general replies "I think NATO did" 

 

One could say that the political obsession with a weapon that makes a populous feel good about the war while we are in the process of actually losing it, is propaganda. But that's just me. 

 

"1 million A-10s forever! Rolling down the line like sausages, we will bury you back into the stone age! "

 

 

The simple fact is when this comparative testing came up years ago, people said flat out. That who won would depend on how they set the test. A Troops in contact in a permissive environment will favor the A-10. While say providing support for an embassy evacuation in a non permissive environment (fighter, SAMs) would favor F-35. 

 

Shrugs in wasted money

 

 

Edited July 15, 2018 by TaiidanTomcat

[TaiidanTomcat]

4 hours ago, Sabre Freak said:

 

Says he commanded an Infantry Platoon.  That count?

 

https://www.defense.gov/About/Biographies/Biography-View/Article/1055835/james-mattis/

 

Being SecDef kinda makes him the Head Grunt?

 

"The F-35 is critical for our own air superiority, because of its electronics capability inherent to the airplane, which magnifies each individual aircraft's capability,” Mattis said during the hearing. “It is equally important and more so to our allies, because this will be the total strength of their Air Force.”

 

There you have it.  From the Head Grunt himself.  Air Superiority uber alles 

 

 

The Marines have been neck deep in the F-35 from the get go. They use F-18s and harriers for CAS, consider every Marine to be a rifleman, and take great pride in the ability to perform CAS including taking actually pilots and folding them into grunt units. 

 

Back in the early 1990s the usmc went to the skunk works and wanted a F-18/harrier hybrid. Basically an F-18 that could STOVL for the purpose of CAS.

 

Moreover we dont have theoretical notions of aircraft that are not A-10s performing CAS. Not A-10s have been performing real life CAS in real Combat for coming up on 17 years straight all over the globe. 

 

Even if an F-16/18 and F-35 are nearly exactly the same in CAS. We know then by extention that the F-35 can perform CAS. Which of course we already knew anyway. 

 

 

The Marines were very unhappy when the USN retired the iowa-class battleships. Apparently big guns+armor+grunt approval didnt mean much. Why does the navy hate grunts? Why are they so cheap? Only with the A-10 do grunt lives matter, and only then because they can be used again as the bargaining chip for political leverage. You know "wont someone think of the children!" Mumbo jumbo. But with "muh troops" inserted for "children"

 

The only "test" regarding A-10s and F-35 and CAS is whether the F-35B or F-35A is uniquely suited or better than the other variant. Would love me some F-35Bs In USAF markings lol 

Edited July 15, 2018 by TaiidanTomcat

[MarkW]

On 7/15/2018 at 12:56 PM, TaiidanTomcat said:

Back in the early 1990s the usmc went to the skunk works and wanted a F-18/harrier hybrid. Basically an F-18 that could STOVL for the purpose of CAS.

 So yeah, it was that sort of "last war" thinking that got us into this mess.  The Marines viewed airpower as mobile artillery support for the grunts for the longest time.  They weren't thinking about B-1 and B-52 CAS because they don't got no B-1s or B-52s.  The Marines still want/need a totally self sufficient force, so they will want/need the old fashioned CAS solution.  The "wasted money" behind that thinking is ginormous compared to the silly test.

[TaiidanTomcat]

On 7/17/2018 at 11:42 AM, MarkW said:

 So yeah, it was that sort of "last war" thinking that got us into this mess.  The Marines viewed airpower as mobile artillery support for the grunts for the longest time.  They weren't thinking about B-1 and B-52 CAS because they don't got no B-1s or B-52s.  The Marines still want/need a totally self sufficient force, so they will want/need the old fashioned CAS solution.  The "wasted money" behind that thinking is ginormous compared to the silly test.

 

 

Right so if anything the F-35 absurdly biased toward CAS.

 

 

And for all the "but what do the grunts on the ground think!?" 

 

I have yet to run into a single grunt that is pro females in the infantry (well other than for the obvious and non combat after dark related reasons) CAS is nice rare, but nice. That cant hack it gal is going to be around morning noon and night, falling out, unable to drag or fire carry ya if you get hit. A-10s are irrelevant with the issues we are seeing with females.

 

Yet we are told that ship has sailed and get used to it regardless of performance.

 

No need to check with Grunts there. In fact see that you dont.

 

[Ken Cartwright]

Dutch F-35As flying with pretty full external loads (and internal too, I believe):

 

https://theaviationist.com/?p=58501

 

Some nice photos and a video.

[fulcrum1]

On 7/18/2018 at 2:42 AM, MarkW said:

  The Marines still want/need a totally self sufficient force, so they will want/need the old fashioned CAS solution.  The "wasted money" behind that thinking is ginormous compared to the silly test.

Guadalcanal suggests it’s money well spent.....

[Ken Cartwright]

F-35As firing the cannon in exercises:

https://theaviationist.com/2018/08/16/these-shots-show-388th-fw-f-35a-using-the-internal-cannon-for-the-first-time-in-operational-training/

[Chris L]

 Sniper needed in the pilot seat ?

 

Edited August 16, 2018 by Chris L

[Ken Cartwright]

In other news, there's also this:

https://in.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-norway/u-s-f-22-stealth-jets-simulate-dogfights-with-norways-f-35-warplanes-idUSKBN1L01YX

 

And this (which reads a lot like a promotional piece from LM, in my opinion😞

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/08/16/biggest-ever-british-warship-joins-forces-with-most-powerful-american-stealth-fighter-jets.html

[Waco]

This thread just keeps rolling down the street, like a turd in the wind.

[nspreitler]

On 7/18/2018 at 4:32 PM, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

 

Right so if anything the F-35 absurdly biased toward CAS.

 

 

And for all the "but what do the grunts on the ground think!?" 

 

I have yet to run into a single grunt that is pro females in the infantry (well other than for the obvious and non combat after dark related reasons) CAS is nice rare, but nice. That cant hack it gal is going to be around morning noon and night, falling out, unable to drag or fire carry ya if you get hit. A-10s are irrelevant with the issues we are seeing with females.

 

Yet we are told that ship has sailed and get used to it regardless of performance.

 

No need to check with Grunts there. In fact see that you dont.

 

Have you actually talked to the grunts that are serving with females in the infantry?  

[phantom]

I was a company sergeant major with a infantry (reserve) unit. I led many females when they were first getting combat roles. The infantry girls on average were just as good as the guys. We had guys who were useless, wimpy weaklings. Not many females. The only thing I found females lacking in was the ability to lift casualties, their weapons and packs. But I also had a couple guys who would throw up when an injury was nasty. Which is more use-less?

 

Now I work in a prison. Same thing. Some women are excellent in a fight. (not all) but at least if your grabbing a inmates leg your helping me in a fight. Some guys are cowards and run the other way.

[Chris L]

 

 We all have a place and purpose.

 

[Don]

31 minutes ago, phantom said:

Now I work in a prison...

Me too...I work from home...LOL!

 

Alright I'll leave...carry on.

 

Regards and happy Friday all

[11bee]

1 hour ago, phantom said:

 The only thing I found females lacking in was the ability to lift casualties, their weapons and packs. 

Not going to judge my friends up north but just thinking that those issues might be just a bit problematic in an infantry squad, no?   I know that if I got shot and my squad mate didn’t have the ability to move me to safety, I’d be a bit irate (and probably a bit dead as well).   That being said, I’d still be damned proud to have died in a gender-neutral military.    

 

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

15 hours ago, nspreitler said:

Have you actually talked to the grunts that are serving with females in the infantry?  

 

Yes and arty units too

 

Its the same problems we've always had, and will always have. Double standards, different standards.

 

 

now a quick caveat. I'm fine with Women being equal, hell I'm fine with women being better. I just don't understand that if we have women why we have separate sets of PT Standards? Why is the Olympics still divided by gender? 

Why do we have (archaic) domestic violence laws on the books? If women are just as capable of strength, violence, aggression, etc. Why do we insist in dividing them like they don't? And why have women covered this up for thousands of years? how come the NFL isn't 50 percent female? or hell even high school or college? Why aren't universities using this to expand their football programs while also complying with title IX?

 

 

Why the Two Standards, Colonel?? 

 

"I can do anything you can do. Ok do a Male PFT, to male Standards"

 

but I can't do that!!  

 

Isn't this easily provable? When will women "drop the mask" and start performing equally already? why are they constantly sand bagging physical endeavors? If women are equal then double standards in the military are inherently sexist and need to be done away with immediately. Its time that women are held to the equal standard I'm told they can achieve. 

 

 

Its like magic. like how everyone can "do a 6 minute mile" until someone breaks out a stop watch, or how everyone can "Bench XXX lbs" until we start loading the bar. Have women just being having an "off (6,000 years) day?" or are they "tired from their last work out and can't really max today?" Ive heard em all, folks. It just seems like with invention of measurable and comparative tests we would have seen that equality showing up by now. yet every time we do a measurable test, it seems to be the opposite... 

 

 

 

Why is the perfect 3 mile Run score for Men 18 minutes flat, but 21 minutes for females? If a male runs it at 21 minutes its a 81 out of 100. If a males runs it at 18:10 its a 99 out of 100) How can one be 3 minutes slower, yet scored the same perfect score? Why don't the females just do 18 minutes like the Males?? Is space and time sexist too? Why is a male Marine docked 19 points for Running what is a perfect 100 for females? Why the double standard? 

Edited August 17, 2018 by TaiidanTomcat

[TaiidanTomcat]

6 hours ago, phantom said:

I was a company sergeant major with a infantry (reserve) unit. I led many females when they were first getting combat roles. The infantry girls on average were just as good as the guys. We had guys who were useless, wimpy weaklings. Not many females. The only thing I found females lacking in was the ability to lift casualties, their weapons and packs. But I also had a couple guys who would throw up when an injury was nasty. Which is more use-less?

 

You don't consider that a deal breaker for some reason? 

 

Is this like a pilot lacking in flying, landing or emergency procedures? But thats ok because some of the men aren't that good either?

 

 

Quote

Now I work in a prison. Same thing. Some women are excellent in a fight. (not all) but at least if your grabbing a inmates leg your helping me in a fight. Some guys are cowards and run the other way.

 

Some guys being cowards doesn't mean that since not all men are 100 percent and some women are, that there should be integration when you yourself say they lack what are not only emergency skills, but day to day stuff like carrying guns and gear all over. 

 

I know some 50 years that are vastly stronger, more brave, and tougher than some 19 year olds, so 50 year olds should be grunts? since not all 19 year olds are up to snuff? 

 

A small group not making the standard, does not mean it should be ok to allow a large group that also can not make the standard. 

 

What you are talking about is called "Overlap"

 

 

Yes there will be some men who are not as strong as women, and there will be some women who are indeed stronger than men. but by and large Males will be physically more capable than females. its not black and white through the whole there is indeed a small and noticeable gray area, but that gray area is fairly rare. This works anecdotally too. I remember all the females that can break double digits on pulls ups. Because its rare. Men breaking double digits on pull ups is about as natural as the sunrise, and in the same way, when it doesn't happen there is a problem. I don't remember them because thats basic boring common stuff. But whats funny is I think that can lead to an unrecognized bias. "WE had women in my unit, and damn one of them was as capable as the men!" thats amazing, but you know that is exceptional because all the men were as capable as the men right? 200 guys all cross the finish line at around the same minute and its "walk if off boys" but if there a female in that group its "ZOMG!! CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT?!" Why are you patronizing her so? shes equal isn't she? whats the big deal? you noticed because its exceptional.

 

And the military, as boring as it is operates on averages. You want to send the group to infantry school that passes 90 percent of the time, not 50 percent. You want to send people to  Infantry Officer Course that pass at 50 percent, not zero percent. (we actually finally got our first female infantry officer, I got the inside scoop and she was passed so the school boss could pad the ol' resume "it was gonna happen sooner or later, might as well get credit for it") 

 

This is why young males, age 19 are the Combat MOS's "key demographic" that's the group that has the highest rates of passing they are also capable of being developed to a higher degree faster, and with a lower rate of injury. if you're dealing with a finite budget and you need numbers (combat MOS people die and get wounded) you should probably go with what give you the most bang for the buck. 

 

 

4 hours ago, 11bee said:

Not going to judge my friends up north but just thinking that those issues might be just a bit problematic in an infantry squad, no?   I know that if I got shot and my squad mate didn’t have the ability to move me to safety, I’d be a bit irate (and probably a bit dead as well).   That being said, I’d still be damned proud to have died in a gender-neutral military.    

 

 

 

Its a small price to pay for equality, Tovarich. 

Edited August 17, 2018 by TaiidanTomcat

[habu2]

Wait, where did the F-35 thread go?  I think I’m reading a different thread.....

[nspreitler]

9 hours ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

 

 

 

 

Some guys being cowards doesn't mean that since not all men are 100 percent and some women are, that there should be integration when you yourself say they lack what are not only emergency skills, but day to day stuff like carrying guns and gear all over. 

 

I know some 50 years that are vastly stronger, more brave, and tougher than some 19 year olds, so 50 year olds should be grunts? since not all 19 year olds are up to snuff? 

 

 

The Army is going to a PT test with standards based on MOS not gender or age.    I'm 42 and still a paratrooper, and I've worked with infantrymen who are over 50 and still jumping out of planes.     The unit I am in is one of the first to include female infantrymen.   If someone can do the job, why shouldn't they do it.   The winner of the 82nd Airborne Best Medic competition last year is a female paratrooper, and that was a physically grueling competition. 

[11bee]

3 hours ago, nspreitler said:

The Army is going to a PT test with standards based on MOS not gender or age.    I'm 42 and still a paratrooper, and I've worked with infantrymen who are over 50 and still jumping out of planes.     The unit I am in is one of the first to include female infantrymen.   If someone can do the job, why shouldn't they do it.   The winner of the 82nd Airborne Best Medic competition last year is a female paratrooper, and that was a physically grueling competition. 

N - I’ve got no issue with where you are coming from.  If the criteria is demanding and it’s maintained for both sexes, it’s all good.  It’s only when they lower the bar in the name of diversity, that’s when I have an issue.    

 

BTW, the N.Y. Times ran a piece on the first infantry platoon leader in the Marines.   She sounds like a pretty squared away LT.