F-35 news roundup

[Tony Stark]

Yet, C-17's, C-130's, helicopters, etc are? In forced entry operations the conversation has had just about every aircraft to include the A-10 providing armed overwatch in years past during training.

Key words right there: years past. That scenarios is great if you're talking about a low threat environment (Legacy SAMs, MiG-29s), but up the threat and that training scenario changes. Nothing's getting in there without a lot more effort.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Tony Stark

[nspreitler]

Key words right there: years past. That scenarios is great if you're talking about a low threat environment (Legacy SAMs, MiG-29s), but up the threat and that training scenario changes. Nothing's getting in there without a lot more effort.

We train for forcible entry constantly, and you are right it isn't going to happen on day one against a very high tech air defense, but it is still a very high priority capability. It is important enough to national security to keep an entire brigade on constant alert just for that scenario.

Edited May 6, 2016 by nspreitler

[Tony Stark]

We train for forcible entry constantly, and you are right it isn't going to happen on day one against a very high tech air defense, but it is still a very high priority capability. It is important enough to national security to keep an entire brigade on constant alert just for that scenario.

Sure. But the proliferation of advanced, mobile SAM systems can make "Day X" as lethal as "Day One." The mission won't go away, but how it's executed (which will be based on factors such as range and threat environment), will dictate how it's carried out.

[fulcrum1]

Sure. But the proliferation of advanced, mobile SAM systems can make "Day X" as lethal as "Day One." The mission won't go away, but how it's executed (which will be based on factors such as range and threat environment), will dictate how it's carried out.

Most Airborne JFE is executed as if it were in a high threat environment and the range is about the maximum amount of distance you can cover in the lower 48. Those years "past" was last year and the year before....but I don't think it makes a difference. The Red team isn't allowed to fight as a peer state would.

[TaiidanTomcat]

BF-1 hit its 1,000th Vertical Landing last month. First VL was in December of 2010:

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has awarded Lockheed Martin a $1.3 billion contract for advance work on 13 F-35s added to an 11th batch of joint strike fighters during budget negotiations last year, according to the program office.

The contract includes six Marine Corps F-35Bs, three Air Force F-35As and four Navy F-35Cs, according to an announcement Monday. Work will be completed in December 2019.

Because the 13 aircraft were not expected when contract negotiations began, no money was initially included for long lead work, according to the joint program office. The Pentagon asked for two F-35s over the planned buy in its fiscal 2016 budget submission, and Congress added 11 more aircraft in the omnibus spending bill — a total of 13 extra jets.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/05/03/lockheed-martin-gets-13-billion-f-35-plus-ups/83864126/

WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, was selected as the new home for the Air Force’s first operational overseas F-35A Lightning IIs.

Air Force officials chose Eielson AFB after a lengthy analysis of the location’s operational considerations, installation attributes, environmental factors and cost.

“Alaska combines a strategically important location with a world-class training environment. Basing the F-35s at Eielson AFB will allow the Air Force the capability of using the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex (JPARC) for large force exercises using a multitude of ranges and maneuver areas in Alaska,” said Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James. "This, combined with the largest airspace in the Air Force, ensures realistic combat training for the (Defense Department).”

Proximity to the JPARC will enable the Air Force to take advantage of approximately 65,000 square miles of available airspace for realistic, world-class training in the Air Force’s most advanced fifth-generation fighter.

The decision culminates a three-year process that included an extensive environmental impact statement that examined impacts on such factors as air quality, noise, land use and socioeconomics.

"The decision to base two F-35 squadrons at Eielson AFB, Alaska, combined with the existing F-22 Raptors at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, will double our fifth-generation fighter aircraft presence in the Pacific theater," said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III. "Integrating that fifth-generation force with Navy, Marine, and allied F-35 forces will provide joint and coalition warfighters unprecedented survivability, lethality and battlespace awareness in contested environments. It's an exciting time for Pacific airpower."

The base is projected to receive two squadrons of F-35As, which will join the wing’s F-16 Fighting Falcon aggressor squadron currently assigned to Eielson AFB.

On-base construction to prepare for the aircraft is expected to start in fiscal year 2017 in order to be ready to accept the first F-35As, which are currently scheduled to begin arriving in 2020.

Source AF.mil

I sure hope the USMC doesn't keep doing CAS exercises with its F-35Bs and doing press releases. A few more years of that could really take the wind out of the DOT&E sails by preempting their little test.

Edited May 6, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[nspreitler]

[name=fulcrum1' timestamp='1462505109' post='2799914]

That's my point, JFE-VUL's payoff is validating systems (Mission Command Nodes) and relationships through the planning process. An airborne or air assault JFE can have two real purposes depending on the phase of the operation you're in. I mentioned the 2-501 in 1st BCT because they just conducted JFE training.

Come on brother, JOAXs are not exercises for airfield seizures!

The first JOAX was in 2011 before that they were called JFEX. A JOAX is certainly airfield seizure for the 82nd, I've jumped in four BCT level ones, several more battalion ones, I've done a JFE-Vul and a JFE into a JRTC rotation and everyone of them started with a JFE airfield seizure. I am not sure what 2-501 did but JFE is trained constantly every unit in the Division does those operations. I last did a JOAX with 1-508 in February right before I moved out of the 82nd. I was there for 4.5 years with close to 3 of those spent on the GRF.

Here the story about the first JOAX.

http://www.pope.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123246703

Edited May 6, 2016 by nspreitler

[TaiidanTomcat]

Together with the Americans we have operated our own airplanes for almost four months, and we are well on our way with the build up here at Luke. This job is unlike anything we have done previously.

The American air force has just recently begun to develop tactics and procedures for exploiting the characteristics and capacities of the airplane. A lot of the work is being done at Luke and within the squadron we are apart of. Norway and the RNoAF are participating from the start, and we have full access into the fundamental discussions. It means we can influence the development of the weapon system - we are in other words in the middle of the sweet spot.

The Norwegian officers at Luke are integrated with an American squadron. Therefore we learn daily from those who know best the F-35, and who already have years of knowledge and experience with 5th. generation airplanes. This will provide us with the best possible starting point when we begin to operate the F-35 in Norway from 2017. The F-35 today has over 50.000 flight hours, and the Norwegian airplanes have been over 150 hours in the air since we received them in December last year.

The F-16 has been a fantastic combat aircraft for the RNoAF for the last 35 years. The introduction of the F-35 will over night represent at least as big a leap in technology and capacity as we have had with the F-16 during its entire lifetime. This provides opportunities, but also challenges. If we are to exploit the capacity that the F-35 is, it will be necessary to change the way we operate, think and organize, something I think will be far more difficult than the introduction of the aircraft itself. It is not the F-35 that will have to just to Norwegian practices, it is we who will need to just to the F-35. The jets will act also as a force multiplier for the army and navy. The aircrafts characteristics and ability to cooperate will give the Norwegian politicians more alternatives to act with respect to the use of military force in the future.

We who fly the F-35 daily, can establish the following: The aircraft is faster, more maneuverable, has more range and, can carry a significantly higher payload and provides the pilot with a significantly better situational awareness than what we are used to from the F-16. But we are still in the development phase of the F-35 program. It is therefore natural that the aircraft has some basic problems, even if critics often use such as "proof" that the airplane will never be able to meet the specifications.

From an operational standpoint the challenges are about getting complex systems to work together. The unique thing about the F-35 program is that we have chosen to operate the aircraft before it is fully developed. On one side this means that some systems are still immature, on the other side we get to take part in a test process which is much more comprehensive than what has been done before. Here at Luke we experience that problems are corrected continuously, and that the aircrafts maneuvering envelope is expanding. I therefore operate a completely different machine today than I did just two months ago.

When the final status is made up in 2025, I am therefore convinced that Norway and the RNoAF will have a weapons system which is even more capable than the government expected when they approved the acquisition in 2008.

[TaiidanTomcat]

The Construction Of The Multipurpose Amphibious Assault Ship TCG Anadolu Has Started

02 May 2016 Bosphorus Naval News

"The construction of the multipurpose amphibious assault ship L-408 TCG Anadolu has started on 30th April 2016.

The ship is based on Navatia’s Juan Carlos 1 design. TCG Anadolu will be similar to SPS Juan Carlos 1 in Spanish Navy and HMAS Adelaide and HMAS Canberra in Royal Australian Navy.

During the ceremony President of Turkish Republic Recep Tayyip Erdoğan made a speech. During his speech he stated that TCG Anadolu will be the first ship in Turkish Navy from which F-35B SVTOL planes will operate. This is the first time official declaration of the long known desire of Turkey to operate fixed wing planes from her ships. This statement also made it clear that Turkey will procure F-35B planes along with her order of F-35A planes....

...The ship will carry 6 F-35B Lightning II planes 4 T-129 ATAK attack helicopters 8 cargo helicopters 2 S-70B Seahawk helicopters and 2 UAVs....."

Turkey Goes STOVL too

[falcon20driver]

I have no dog in this fight, but it would appear the more people operate this aircraft the more people want it.

[11bee]

Turkey Goes STOVL too

My vote to be the first F-35's that see combat.

[Don]

I have no dog in this fight, but it would appear the more people operate this aircraft the more people want it.

Same here. It seems that once a nation starts using the AC they certainly become pretty enthusiastic about it.

EDIT: Even Canada is loving the F-35...albeit in a slightly different form...

:lol:

Edited May 6, 2016 by Don

[TaiidanTomcat]

My vote to be the first F-35's that see combat.

I would have bet Israel a year ago, but now.

You may be right.

Edited May 6, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[fulcrum1]

The first JOAX was in 2011 before that they were called JFEX. A JOAX is certainly airfield seizure for the 82nd, I've jumped in four BCT level ones, several more battalion ones, I've done a JFE-Vul and a JFE into a JRTC rotation and everyone of them started with a JFE airfield seizure. I am not sure what 2-501 did but JFE is trained constantly every unit in the Division does those operations. I last did a JOAX with 1-508 in February right before I moved out of the 82nd. I was there for 4.5 years with close to 3 of those spent on the GRF.

CPX, CTX, FTX, JOAX, CJOAX, JFEX, etc is the exercise itself. GRF, ARCF, CRF, DCRF, ARF, QRF is the mission. Airfield seizure is the task. JFE is the operation.

[fulcrum1]

Edited May 6, 2016 by fulcrum1

[TaiidanTomcat]

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=22411&mode=view

Judges critique the lack of weathering on the Turkish Carrier model...

Secret to F-35's combat superiority revealed:

Inner Tweet

Edited May 6, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[Darren Roberts]

I call fake! :)

[11bee]

I would have bet Israel a year ago, but now.

You may be right.

The ironic thing is that their aircraft might be in action against Israel, Russia or a NATO country. Take yer pick, good odds on any of those options.

[falcon20driver]

With the vast number of countries buying the F-35, some being better allies than others, do you suppose the DOD installed software to "disable" aircraft if need be?

[11bee]

With the vast number of countries buying the F-35, some being better allies than others, do you suppose the DOD installed software to "disable" aircraft if need be?

Good point. We'll never know but I wouldn't be suprised if there isn't a tiny bit of malware hidden somewhere in those millions of lines of code. Given recent events in certain nations, I'm hoping this is the case.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Good point. We'll never know but I wouldn't be suprised if there isn't a tiny bit of malware hidden somewhere in those millions of lines of code. Given recent events in certain nations, I'm hoping this is the case.

There have been rumors circulating like this for years... usually by JSF competitors who want to imply Uncle Sam could render their airplanes inert at the press of a button, in the next breath they then mention their sales pitch that includes everything of course, source code and all.

For all of the F-35’s early developmental troubles and the various bugs still being squashed, production of the stealthy jet has been slowly rising since the first one flew in 2006. Earlier plans called for full production by now, but that was delayed by problems that ultimately added billions of dollars to the cost. But now, production is poised to explode. This year, Lockheed will build 53 F-35s here and at another assembly facility in Italy, pushing the worldwide total past 200. That’s more than the Air Force has F-22 Raptors.

Most will be assembled by Lockheed, the world’s largest defense contractor, in this mile-long building formally known as Air Force Plant 4. More than 10,000 planes have been born here, including the B-24 Liberator, B-36 Peacemaker, F-111 Aardvark, and F-16 Fighting Falcon. The F-35 is expected to add nearly three thousand to that total: nearly 2,500 for the U.S. military and hundreds more for allies.

B-24 Liberator bombers being assembled in Fort Worth, Texas, during World War II. (U.S. Air Force)

While the exterior hasn’t changed much — Plant 4 has historic status — its insides would be unrecognizable to Rosie the Riveter. As turboprops gave way to jets and aluminum skins to carbon-fiber composite, the plant and its floor have evolved. Today, the plant’s guts are changing again as it prepares to close out more than four decades of F-16 production.

“Everything inside, we can modernize,” Kevin McCormick, an employee of 30-plus years, said during a tour of the plant earlier this week.

The F-35 is a complicated construction of 300,000 parts from 1,100-plus suppliers whose sprawling supply chain touches nearly every U.S. state and countries around the world. But final assembly is largely a matter of connecting three fuselage sections plus wings.

“Those four major components come together right here,” McCormick said.

Plant 4 does the major assembly on the forward fuselage and wings. One quarter-mile stretch of factory floor is dedicated to making the wings. Every five days, pieces of wing move from one station to the next. Later this year, that interval will be cut to four.

Other key sections are assembled elsewhere, and arrive here in big chunks. Center fuselages are made by Northrop Grumman in Palmdale, California, and by Turkish Aerospace Industries in Ankara, Turkey. The aft section is made by BAE Systems in the U.K.

In all, foreign suppliers make about half of each F-35. Increasingly, they are doing final assembly as well. Lockheed has replicated the Fort Worth plant in Italy, where Alenia Aermacchi finished its first jet last year and could build F-35s for other European allies, and in Japan, which is supposed to finish assembling its first plane next year.

There’s already an international feel in Fort Worth. On Tuesday morning, a ceiling crane hoisted the center section of an Israeli jet from one assembly station to the next. Nearby, a robot drilled precise, laser-guided holes into the green wings of Norway’s eighth F-35. Farther south, Japan’s first F-35A and the U.K. Royal Air Force’s seventh F-35B slowly meandered their way northward. Simple printed cards in plastic sheets marked the Air Force’s 104th jet and the U.S. Marine Corps’ 55th F-35B.

That latter plane awaited its Pratt & Whitney engine and Rolls-Royce lift fan. Its outer panels had yet to arrive, exposing some of its 16 miles of cables and the white boxes that feed the jet’s cognitive electronic warfare suite. In a few weeks, it would be the 225th Joint Strike Fighter to roll off the line.

Remarkably Quiet

Despite its vast size, the plant is remarkably quiet. There is no riveting or hammering. The occasional warning buzzer sounds when parts of the jets are moved down the assembly line. Parts and tools are shuttled around on golf-cart-sized vehicles; employees ride bicycles because it’s faster than walking. To keep the tools properly calibrated, the temperature inside is always 72 degrees Fahrenheit.

All three F-35 variants are produced on this line, and by the same workers. The variants share only about 30 percent of their parts; the rest are variant-specific. For example, the wing on the Navy’s F-35, built to handle aircraft-carrier operations, is 40 percent larger than the wing on the Air Force’s conventional F-35A and the Marines’ vertical-landing F-35B. To accommodate the different wing sizes, special slats in the scaffolding slide in and out to fill in the gaps.

More than 2,200 people work on the assembly line, supported by another 1,500 office workers nearby. When production reaches full steam, larger around-the-clock shifts are expected.

The amount of time it takes to build a jet has come down steadily, said Eric Van Camp, Lockheed’s director of F-35 business development. It took about 160,000 labor hours to build the first F-35A in 2006. (The first F-35B took about 140,000 hours and the first F-35C took 130,000 hours.) But the most recent F-35A required only about 43,000 hours.

“There’s common learning that goes on between the variants,” Van Camp said.

And even as they prepare for full F-35 production, Lockheed and its partners are eyeing new manufacturing techniques that they hope could trim $10 million from each plane’s price tag, bringing it to $80 million by 2019. (The Pentagon says each one currently costs $100 million.) Collectively, Lockheed, Northrop and BAE have invested $132 million to help reduce the cost of the planes, Rein said.

For example, Lockheed is experimenting with a new way to drill the F-35’s wings. Currently, water and oil are used to cool a robotic drill bit so it doesn’t overheat and break. It’s a messy process, with fluid dripping down each wing. The new way uses cryogenic machining — essentially, freezing the drill bit beforehand instead of cooling it as it goes, Rein said. The company spent $119,000 testing the process, which it says will save $400,000 per jet, saving $12 million over the life of the program.

Another $298,000 investment in new forging techniques on the F-35C has trimmed about $30,000 per jet, totalling $10 million over the life of the program. It might not seem like much money, but with the total program expected to cost $379 billion, any savings matter.

By 2020, one year after the Fort Worth plant hits its full 17-jet-per-month stride, there will be more than 600 F-35s, including nearly 180 sent to U.S. allies.

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/05/f-35-production-set-quadruple-massive-factory-retools/128120/

MV-22 Refuel Test

On the other side of the country, the Marines took another step

forward towards an overseas deployment next year when an MV-22

Osprey completed a ground-refueling test with the F-35B.

"The test was to validate ground refueling from an MV-22 to an F-35B,

which is integral to the construct of the Marine Air Ground Task Force,"

said USMC Maj. Adam Geitner, pilot and VMX-22 F-35 Detachment

Aircraft Maintenance officer. “From a tactical point of view, the MV-22

to F-35 ground refueling allows the Marine Corps to employ assets in

austere environments on a short notice without having to rely on longterm

planning and fixed facilities.

Source LM

[TaiidanTomcat]

We spent a significant chunk of time

with our A-10 pilots being the instructors

and managers of the test, putting our

F-15E and F-16 crews through the

‘Sandy 1’ through ‘Sandy 4’ upgrades’,

Wood revealed, referring to the long

and arduous upgrade process that is the

preserve of the A-10 world, and which

leads to pilots becoming qualified as an

on-scene commander in a CSAR situation.

Crucially, Wood and his team wanted

to evaluate the ‘Viper’ and Strike Eagle

in a contested CSAR environment,

with modern air defenses and hostile

interceptors presenting a threat.

‘What we determined was that CSAR

is hard. It’s a challenging mission, and

something that the Air Force cares deeply

about’. But the ‘Green Bats’ came back

with two key learning points.

Firstly, ‘If the A-10 goes away, it doesn’t

really matter which platform you choose.

F-16s and F-15Es each have strengths and

weaknesses: it’s not so much the platform

as the operator and the aircrew who are

trained for that mission and have the

culture that comes with being asked to

do that job.’

Secondly, and most interestingly, the

F-35 excelled in the CSAR test. While the

squadron has flown F-35A CAS TD&E

sorties in the Nellis ranges with Joint

Terminal Air Controllers (JTACs) of the

66th WPS and at the ‘Green Flag’ exercise

at the National Training Center at Fort

Irwin, California, its performance in the

CSAR role caught many by surprise. Wood

is quick to point out that the F-35 was

not a formal part of the test, but became

involved only when the squadron needed

an A-10 ‘Sandy 1’ pilot and the only one

available was a current F-35 pilot. ‘In the

middle of the test we threw a couple of

F-35s into the fray. One of the F-35s ended

up taking over the role of ‘Sandy 1’. He

runs the whole show, from the rescue helos

to the tankers to the entire C2 [command

and control] apparatus. This particular F-35

was a Block 1B, so about as immature as

they come, but this F-35 pilot was a former

A-10 WIC IP [Weapons Instructor Course

instructor pilot] and CSAR IP.

‘No kidding, he shows up and within five

minutes on station he’s quarterbacked

the whole thing, they’ve rescued the

survivor and everyone goes home. It was

a fascinating data point — that F-35 was

running an immature, never-made-for-prime-time,

incrementally developed tape.

But he was able to run the CSAR force

through his training and SA [situational

awareness], using some of the F-35’s

strengths, and mitigating its challenges.’

Pragmatism imbues Wood’s statements

on the A-10’s future — he describes

himself as ‘agnostic’. With no political

agenda or axe to grind, his view is

informed by the tests he’s overseen and

is characterized by a rational tone and

a sense of balance. ‘There are strengths

an F-15E has over an A-10 in CSAR. And

there are notable strengths that the A-10

has — close proximity to the survivor and

the ability to roll in quickly with 30mm,

for example. If we could develop a single

platform for a very speci c mission, the

A-10 is very good for a permissive, detailed integration

air-to-ground support fighter.

But this is not about who can do it. It’s

about who is optimized to do it. What am

I saying? That I am not concerned about

the future of CAS or the future of CSAR,

because if I were looking at a scale of how

important the platform is versus how

important the training of the pilot is, I

would say 75 per cent is the pilot, the WSO

[weapon systems o cer] and the team’s

training. If I take the best CAS pilot in the

world and put him in the F-16, and one

of the worst A-10 pilots and put him in an

A-10, who do I want ying the mission? The

platform is only as good as the guy ying

it, and the didifference is mitigated through

training.’

I would STRONGLY recommend Reading the whole thing :

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=22817

PDF^

http://imgur.com/a/VLbKU

Imgur scan^

Edited May 10, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[nspreitler]

Using the MV-22 as a FARP for the F-35 is pretty cool, and could be a very useful capable.

The point on the pilot training trumping platform is also true. While I can't say for certain it was training or experience I have seen some of the most advanced aircraft miss targets that weren't difficult to hit, and I have to wonder if it was because of lack of experience is air to ground missions.

Edited May 11, 2016 by nspreitler

[TaiidanTomcat]

loved this part too:

There has been no o cial word from the

Air Force’s O ce of Test and Evaluation

on the matter since August 2015, but the

indications are that DOT&E director Dr

Michael Gilmore still intends to pit the F-35

and A-10 against one another in a sort of

y-o to reveal capability gaps and to hold

the Air Force leadership to account for their

decision to ‘replace the A-10 with the F-35’.

Gen Welch, the Air Force Chief of Sta ,

initially responded that such a competition

would be ‘silly’, pointing out that the Air

Force had never actually said the A-10

would be replaced by the F-35, and that

the premise of Gilmore’s proposed test was

therefore erroneous. He later rescinded his

comments, but the cat was out of the bag.

The author asked a wide range of OT

aircrew what they thought of the idea

of a y-o , as described by Gilmore, and

most were mysti ed by it. Wood is wary

of the subject, choosing his words with

care. ‘I am intimately familiar with the

comparative testing that the Air Force is

being asked to conduct. What I would

say is that it’s very important to compare

apples to apples, and not draw unrealistic

conclusions from speci c mission sets.

IOT&E [initial OT&E] is something that

happens to every platform that we eld.

Dr Gilmore is the quality assurance check

on the military’s acquisition system, and

DOT&E’s role is to be the guy in the room

whose only concern is to make sure that

what we are buying meets the needs of

the war ghter. With that in mind, he wants

that comparison. What I will tell you is

that when you try to have a comparative

analysis of a single-mission platform like

the A-10 against a platform like the F-35,

which is fundamentally designed from the

ground up to do something completely

di erent, you run the risk of drawing

unrealistic conclusions.

‘Take BFM [basic ghter maneuvers], for

example. You y o a ‘clean’ F-16 against

a ‘clean’ F-35 — who will win? That’s a

di cult question to answer. In some

parameters, the F-16 is going to dominate.

It’s a day VFR [visual ight rules] ghter that

can turn inside its own butt. The F-35 was

built with stealth to be able to go places

that no-one else can go and to be lethal

without anyone seeing it. Those are two

very di erent design points. So, what if I

draw a conclusion that the F-35 can be out

BFM’d by the F-16 — therefore the F-16 is

better? Hmmm. Well, let’s throw in a couple

of enemy SAMs [surface-to-air missiles].

Then let’s see how the F-16 by itself does.

In other words, you can design tests if

you have inside knowledge to showcase

strengths and weaknesses and abuse them

to your own bias if you wanted to do a

disingenuous comparative analysis.

‘What we try to do in OT&E is to avoid

simplistic comparisons like that. The

way we do that is to compare apples to

apples in a scenario. So, with CAS, I don’t

know what DOT&E will do, and we won’t

have much to do with that because we

do ACC and MAJCOM [Major Command]

testing, whereas DOT&E typically task

AFOTEC [Air Force Operational Test and

Evaluation Center] to do that, but I’ll be

real interested to see how they’re going

to do a comparative test and what data

they draw from it. I am not a big fan of

comparative analysis because I think that

it is intellectually challenging to compare

likes and dislikes.’

Wood’s example of comparing the F-35

to the F-16 in BFM raises the question of

the blog posts that lambasted the F-35

following a leaked ight test report in

mid-2015. The report provided comment

on dog ghting handling qualities, and

followed an engagement with an F-16.

It was rapidly taken out of context and

manipulated to form such headlines as

‘Test Pilot Admits F-35 Can’t Dog ght’, and

ostensibly bolsters the criticisms of talking

heads such as Pierre Sprey, the ‘father’

of the F-16.

Maj Ryan ‘Scar’ Thulin, who converted to

the F-35 from the F-16C, is unmoved by

those who say the F-35 can’t dog ght: ‘You

have to think about this in terms of what

the F-35 was actually designed to do. The

father of the lightweight ghter wanted to

create a day VFR ghter that was extremely

maneuverable and light for dog ghting.

So, they made a phenomenal platform

with great maneuverability, great visibility,

the ability to out-rate [nose authority] any

platform at the time. They set their criteria

and they did it extremely well.

‘Now you fast-forward and look at the

F-35. The criteria we designed that with

were not as a lightweight, dog ghting

machine. It is a fth-generation platform

that can go where other airplanes can’t.

From the very beginning — from the

design assumptions and requirements

onwards — it was never designed to

sustain 9g and out-rate any platform. It’s

therefore very di cult to compare the

two. For the mission we were designed for,

which is accessing anywhere in the world

and delivering precision global strike, we

are very, very good. Trying to compare

one aircraft designed for one mission with

another designed for a di erent mission, it

gets very di cult.’

While Thulin says that he doesn’t really

follow the media buzz surrounding the

F-35 (‘I just focus on taking the aircraft the

Air Force has bought and on making it the

best that it can be in the future’), Wood

must take a broader view. He cautions

that such reporting has a harmful e ect

that will eventually trickle down to the

war ghter. ‘The interesting thing is when

War is Boring released the BFM report

from the F-35 and F-16, this uno cial,

after-action report from one ight was

propagated as a validated test report —

which it completely is not’. Other blogs

— also written by those without a single

hour of OT&E experience — followed the

original article, further fanning the flames

and leading eventually to national media

coverage. But there’s a recklessness to this

sort of amateur analysis, Wood intimates.

‘The war ghter is eventually going to

su er because we — operational test —

are now going to have to concentrate on

this niche act of dog ghting instead of

spending our time and resources where

we feel the jet needs the majority of

its focus.’

[ST0RM]

During a mission over Iraq in 2010, an Army UH-60 Blackhawk had to make a forced landing south of Baghdad. Thankfully I was listening to Guard, as we were headed home after being released from our tasking for the day. 15 minutes earlier, we topped off a pair of F-16s that were on patrol.

Long story short, using training I gained from my previous career field, our KC-135 crew took on the role of "Sandy 1" and began notifying C&C agencies, directing recovery actions and top cover from the F-16s we had just refueled.

So, the above article is validated. It's not just the jet, it's the person inside. But I think the argument against the F-35 in this role, questions it's ability to get down low like the A-10 can/does and survive. Like the question of using vulnerable F-51s in Korea for CAS when the P-47 would have been better and survivable. Available aircraft numbers answered that.

To fit the F-35 into the CSAR/CAS role, what we've seen previous with the A-10 dropping low over troops for strafing and rockets passes, will go away. High altitude precision munitions will replace that. Tactics will change to fit the aircraft's abilities and inabilities.

-Jeff

[11bee]

Using the MV-22 as a FARP for the F-35 is pretty cool, and could be a very useful capable.

Somehow I can't see the Corp putting a few billion dollars worth of jets at some FARP on the desert, vulnerable to tube or rocket artillery. Makes for nice PR clips (just like they did with the Harrier, showing it flying out of soccer fields, parking lots, clearings in the woods, etc) but at the end of the day, I'll wager their jets will either be flying off of carrier decks or nice big bases with 10,000' runways.