F-35 news roundup

[Gordon Shumway]

As cool as demonstrations are they just air show theatre. Bottom line any time the SH has gone up against the F-35 for a nation looking to replace its aging fighters the F-35 has won. Unless those on the selection committees of those nations are all clueless then I suspect they are seeing something in the F-35 that they are not in the SH (and other contemporary AC for that matter). Honestly, if Canadian decision makers make their selection based on the Abbotsford air show (even if an F-35 were to attend) then you have much bigger problems to worry about regarding leadership. Don't worry though. "Sunny" has it all figured out. He either buys the SH and says "see I kept my promise" and let the next guy deal with it 10 years from now or he waits long enough so that the SH is no longer an option whereby he can say "well golly gee I didn't want to do this but we have no other options at this point" or something to that affect (thereby technically not breaking his promise). So no fear..."Mr. Selfie" will come out looking good no matter the outcome.

:cheers:/>

I agree no nation should be choosing its military hardware via an air show itself. Air shows such as Farnborough and Paris are two where contractors show off, hob nob and glad had politicians, bureaucrats and others. I have no idea what Boeing is planning with its own Super Hornet display flown by Traven except to maybe, hi-lite the jet, show it off, talk to any govt. politicians and bureaucrats.

I guess influencing general public opinions may be a side part of it all. I have no idea which dignitaries may be there, but maybe the Defense Minister ??? I guess out of my gut to try to get this 'temporary' fill in purchase of Supers while the govt. hums and haws about F-35 or not. But I have no idea, however will enjoy any JET NOISE at an air show. I You Tubed Traven's 2012 Farnborough display. It was pretty friggin kick butt. F-18E/F is a pretty kick but combat jet regardless of one's opinions on it, F-35 or what other choices.

[fulcrum1]

Maybe. Maybe not. Air power falls more heavily into the Navy funding than the EFV does. Blue dollars vs Green Dollars. The Navy paid/pays big bucks into Marine aircraft, not so much for Amtraks, which are clearly a Marine thing and the Navy does not help at all or very very little.

In this particular incident it was a choice to fully fund air options or x, y, z. This would have also bled into the ground side budget and projections were that it could consume up to 90% of that pot of money. There is plenty written about this on the professional side as JFEO is gaining traction again. The importance is the USMC still retained one arm of their over horizon push they made in the early 80's. All things considered what would you have done with limited dollars? I think doubling down on V-22's, a new heavy lift helicopter, new light lift/attack helicopters, and the F-35B were the wise options.

One of the slights used against the EFV was it couldn't handle IEDs. Another issue that has crept up is the Armor weight of all USMC vehicls. As all vehicles now are covered with armor thanks to GWOT, amphibious/ship to shore vehicles carry fewer vehicles, necessitating more trips, slowing down the invasion. MRAPs can't swim either. Its made a dent believe me.

The program was a bust before the IED slight was made. Also, when did maneuver vehicles ever not have armor?

[11bee]

Also, when did maneuver vehicles ever not have armor?

Pre-GWOT, many Army units maneuver vehicles consisted of unarmored HUMVEE's with various weapon fits (MG or TOW). Now that the Army is getting nervous about the proliferation of ATGM's (which can kill just about any vehicle in the Army's inventory aside from an M1), the focus seems to be shifting away from heavier and heavier armor arrays and instead towards active protection systems, similar to what the Israeli's have as a standard fit on most of their frontline tanks and AFV's.

[fulcrum1]

Pre-GWOT, many Army units maneuver vehicles consisted of unarmored HUMVEE's with various weapon fits (MG or TOW). Now that the Army is getting nervous about the proliferation of ATGM's (which can kill just about any vehicle in the Army's inventory aside from an M1), the focus seems to be shifting away from heavier and heavier armor arrays and instead towards active protection systems, similar to what the Israeli's have as a standard fit on most of their frontline tanks and AFV's.

Going back to I assume 80's doctrine is a Humvee a combat platform and where does it fit in CAM? Think Bradley. The Army is nervous about ATGM's? Who in the Army? The shift is towards heavy ABCT's and those units rotating through Kuwait, Korea, and Europe. IBCT's are usually on the patch chart for combat deployments.

[Don]

Couple videos that I just watched while looking for stuff for modeling projects that I figured I'd share:

If they've been posted before then my apologies.

Enjoy!

[11bee]

The Army is nervous about ATGM's? Who in the Army?

I would assume that whoever is is pushing for the rapid fielding of active protection systems on pretty much all Army combat vehicles. Last I read, they were trying to hasten the fielding of these systems by evaluating and purchasing foreign (primarily Israeli) systems. Granted these are also designed to counter "dumb" antitank weapons such as RPG's but we've already got the RPG's mostly countered by covering lighter combat vehicles with reactive armor, mesh, slat armor, etc. So it seemed to make sense the new-found impetus for this was the ATGM threat.

Maybe the Army decided the next war would look more like Ukraine or Syria where ATGM's were pretty prevalent, rather than Afghanistan or Iraq where IEDs and to a lesser extent RGP's were the biggest killers of US vehicles?

That's my take, if you disagree, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the subject.

[MarkW]

I'm not understanding the distinction. RPGs and ATGM basically use the same HEAT type warhead, so how is the reactive armor defnse mechanism different? Granted wire mesh won't work...

[11bee]

I'm not understanding the distinction. RPGs and ATGM basically use the same HEAT type warhead, so how is the reactive armor defnse mechanism different? Granted wire mesh won't work...

Many ATGM's have larger warheads that will overpower even ERA. There are also warheads that are specifically designed for that purpose (including one of the TOW-2 variants I believe), using a precursor charge to trigger the ERA before the primary warhead explodes. Lastly, some ATGM's (including the Javelin and TOW-2B) have a top attack profile where it's just not possible to stack ERA blocks or other add-on armor.

I like the active protection approach. It's definitely a more elegant solution, as opposed to simply adding more and more armor to an existing design.

Regarding Fulcrum's comment - Honestly, I could be wrong about the US Army being "nervous" about the threat. Just seems a bit coincidental that the Army started seriously focusing on active protection systems around the same time that ATGMs started wracking up large numbers of kills in Syria and later, in the Ukraine. Israel, which suffered a significant number of armor losses from ATGM during it's 2006 conflict w/ Hezbollah appears to have taken this threat much more seriously and rapidly fielded it's Trophy system (on most frontline tanks by 2007). Compare the IDF to the US Army, which hasn't yet faced any significant number of ATGM's on the battlefield and appeared, until recently, to be comfortable with just adding additional armor to it's tanks and AFV's.

[MarkW]

Good points. Active is a more elegant solution, eventually the vehicle would be ridiculous given the cat and mouse nature. And ATGM videos posted by ISIS are very easy to find. None if these systems should rely on a single solution, just like the F-35 and F-22 rely on way more than just shaping to do their job.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Good points. Active is a more elegant solution, eventually the vehicle would be ridiculous given the cat and mouse nature.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Marine Corps’ top aviator said the F-35B Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter pilots have matured in their understanding of the new platform in the year since the service declared initial operational capability (IOC), pushing themselves to push past planned tactics and create a new way of using the fifth-generation technology. Lt. Gen. Jon Davis said today at an American Enterprise Institute event that he “stacked the deck” early with Top Gun graduates and weapons tactics instructors who could quickly understand the new plane and how to best use it. Over the last year, those Marines’ efforts have led to “unprecedented” successes in live and simulated tests, shooting down all targets and suffering no JSF losses in many cases.

Last summer, as a last step before recommending an IOC declaration, Davis tasked the first F-35B squadron with completing an operational readiness inspection – a test event borrowed from the Brits, he said. As part of the test, Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 121 performed an armed reconnaissance mission that can sometimes take AV-8B Harrier and F-18 Hornet pilots all day to complete. “These guys went out there and they found all the targets very quickly and killed all the targets,” he said, noting the early proficiency of the squadron. “Most importantly, … we put a radar [surface-to-air missile] out in the objective area. In the old days we’d have to go take care of the radar SAM, get somebody in to go take care of that because you don’t do armed reconnaissance, which is patrolling for targets out there, unless you’ve got a permissive threat environment and you beat that threat. These guys went out with the SAM in the area and did that and they killed the SAM.” Fast forward a year, he said, and the squadron has gone from proficient to innovative. Davis brought Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Robert Neller to meet the pilots and learn about the planes and tactics. During the visit, the squadron was assigned two drills.

The first was done with fewer planes than Davis thought was needed, but otherwise went according to plan. He said the pilots were given a scenario that was “very high-end, off the ship, go into the jaws of death, double-digit SAMs, fighter threat, and go after a very strategic target on the ground. I watched them do it as a foursome, which normally I would say it would be 13 or 14 airplanes normally, what I would do as [commanding officer] of the weapons school, which I was. … They killed the fighters, they killed the SAMs, they killed the target, they came home. “What was most interesting to be was not what they did but how they did it. It was very much the maturation of the pilots and how they’re flying this airplane, how they’re using information, communicating with each other, sharing information,” he continued. “It was more like watching a pack of dogs go after something. And it was force-on-force, it wasn’t scripted,” so their success – particularly with so few aircraft – was far from guaranteed.

The second drill, though, did not go as planned – in the best possible way, Davis said. The planes were to fly a close-air support mission through clouds at 1,000 feet, with the planes in the 3F configuration that allows for pylons to externally carry 18,000 pounds of bombs. “I’m out there, the commandant of the Marine Corps is out there, I want to impress the commandant,” Davis said. “This first scenario was awesome, and then right before the second scenario I said, are we ready to go? And this young major comes up … he goes, ‘we’re not going to do exactly what you want us to do.’ I’m like [eyes grow wide]. “Because we didn’t think the tasking was challenging enough. So we’ve got two that are slick and two that are loaded up as bomb trucks. We can do the job sir, don’t worry.’” So two planes forfeited their external carry capacity in exchange for stealth, and “it was a work of art,” Davis said. The planes hit all their targets in five and a half minutes, with the four planes passing images through the clouds and successfully taking out the missile threat early on. “I just watched, I’m like, that’s not how my brain works, but that is the way their brains are working,” he said. “Gen.(Charles) Krulak, who I used to work for, said ‘you don’t man the equipment, you equip the man,’ so we’re equipping these young Marines, this generation that doesn’t know any bounds for latitude for technology, and they’re leveraging this technology and doing great things.”

After the event, Davis told USNI News that, in addition to the squadrons, the F-35B test squadron has been an agent for innovation with the new airplane. “We have VMX-1, which is our test squadron. We put very creative folks in there and they’re asking why all the time,” he said. “One, they’re actually getting the test plan we’ve got to do for the airplane to get the capabilities as quick as we can, but they’re also, they have tactical hunger and they want to do better and they see opportunities out there, can we do this, can we do this, can we do this.”

https://news.usni.org/2016/07/29/f-35b-tactics-evolving#more-20947

More:

..In little more than five minutes, the F-35Bs destroyed the targets and a surface-to-air-missile site using pictures from a forward air controller that were relayed to the aircraft through the cloud cover, he said.

Davis rebutted critics who claim the F-35B is “too much technology for the Marine Corps,” explaining the Marines’ mission is to be able to fight anywhere at any time against anybody.

To drive his point home, Davis recalled a conversation he had with retired Marine Lt. Gen. Frank Petersen Jr., the Marine Corps’ first African-American aviator and general officer. The two met before Petersen died in August.

“I said: Well, some people think we’re getting too much technology,” Davis said. “He goes: ‘I was shot down in Korea and I was shot down in Vietnam; never once did I think I had too much technology. Go tell them they’re idiots.’” "

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/07/29/top-marine-aviator-f-35b-ready-war/87723280/

ARLINGTON, Va. — New aircraft and upgrades are increasing the lethality and effectiveness of the Marine Corps’ aircraft, according to the service’s aviation boss, who praised the performance of the F-35 Lightning II strike fighter in recent exercises.

Weapons, sensors and electronic warfare systems being added to Marine aircraft are giving added or new capabilities to the Corps, Lt. Gen. Jon M. Davis, deputy commandant for aviation, said during a July 29 discussion at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank.

“We’ve got a jewel in our hands,” Davis said of the F-35B, noting its performance in recent Red Flag joint exercises staged from Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. The F-35, “even in its current configuration, is doing a phenomenal job at killing all targets.”

Davis noted that the F-35 is not yet equipped with the software with which it will deploy, including a streaming video capability, but already the aircraft is proving its potential and its pilots are finding innovative ways to use it.

“We’ve just started to scratch the surface” of the F-35’s capabilities, Davis said.

He said the F-35 is not just a replacement for older aircraft, such as the F/A-18 and AV-8B, but is changing the way the service looks at the capabilities of a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), explaining that the addition of a refueling package to the MV-22B Osprey tiltrotor aircraft will greatly extend the range of the F-35B deployed on amphibious warfare ships.

He also praised the MV-22, which he said was “the most in-demand aircraft in [the Defense Department]” and had expanded the radius of action of an MEU to thousands of miles. He said the Corps is finding it a challenge to train personnel fast enough to fly and, in particular, maintain the Osprey.

Davis said the Corps is introducing Increment 2 of the Harvest Hawk gunship suite on the KC-130J tanker/transport aircraft. The new increment will include the Hellfire air-to-surface missile, small gravity-dropped munitions and the MX-20 electro-optical/infrared sensor turret.

“We love [the KC-130J] to death; we’re using the heck out of that airplane,” he said. “Harvest Hawk has been a phenomenal success.”

He noted that outside of its strike fighters and EA-6B electronic attack aircraft, the Marine Corps was lacking in Link 16 tactical networking capability.

“We have not had a connected force,” he said, noting that Link 16 is being fielded on its AV-8B Harrier II attack aircraft and that a link capability eventually will be installed on the MV-22Bs, KC-130Js, the AH-1Z attack helicopters and CH-53 heavy-lift helicopters.

Davis said the Intrepid Tiger electronic warfare pod, now carried by the F/A-18, AV-8B and UH-1Y, also will be deployed in the future on the V-22 and the KC-130J.

“We’re upping that not only to be a comms jammer but also to an RF [radio frequency] jammer open architecture, reprogrammable system,” he said.

http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20160729-mc-aviation.html

[11bee]

Good points. Active is a more elegant solution, eventually the vehicle would be ridiculous given the cat and mouse nature. And ATGM videos posted by ISIS are very easy to find. None if these systems should rely on a single solution, just like the F-35 and F-22 rely on way more than just shaping to do their job.

Also some videos are appearing of Saudi and Iraqi M1 Abrams being destroyed by ATGMs (and more than likely, the missiles in question are older designs like the Russian Kornet). The only sure way to defeat an incoming missile (or RPG for that matter) is to destroy it before it hits.

Sorry for dragging this thread way off topic, it's a subject that I have quite an interest in.

Edited July 30, 2016 by 11bee

[fulcrum1]

I would assume that whoever is is pushing for the rapid fielding of active protection systems on pretty much all Army combat vehicles. Last I read, they were trying to hasten the fielding of these systems by evaluating and purchasing foreign (primarily Israeli) systems. Granted these are also designed to counter "dumb" antitank weapons such as RPG's but we've already got the RPG's mostly countered by covering lighter combat vehicles with reactive armor, mesh, slat armor, etc. So it seemed to make sense the new-found impetus for this was the ATGM threat.

Maybe the Army decided the next war would look more like Ukraine or Syria where ATGM's were pretty prevalent, rather than Afghanistan or Iraq where IEDs and to a lesser extent RGP's were the biggest killers of US vehicles?

That's my take, if you disagree, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the subject.

There's always a new threat when it comes to finding funds! I don't disagree and I think it's a win-win situation with a proven off the shelf system. From what I looked into it seems two or three BDE's will be outfitted with this equipment via rfi and the Marines are going with something called a Trophy system. The Army's priority and challenge? http://www.tradoc.army.mil/tpubs/pams/TP525-3-1.pdf

[MarkW]

Heeeeeeee's Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack! Messier Axe. Note there are zero calories or new content in this post.

Copied here in entirety to avoid upping the click bait count:

Official Thumbs-Up08.01.16 1:00 AM ET

It Could Be Years Before Billion-Dollar War Toy F-35 Is Ready for Combat

Don’t get too excited about the U.S. Air Force possibly declaring the long-delayed F-35 fighter jet ready for combat—if history is any guide, it won’t be sent into a fight for years.

The U.S. Air Force could declare its new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter stealth jet combat-ready as early as Monday.

The so-called initial operational capability announcement means the F-35—the Pentagon’s latest radar-evading warplane and the product of history’s most expensive weapons program—can, in theory, deploy overseas to bomb ISIS or deter Russia or China.

“We have achieved all our milestones,” Lt. Col. Steven Anderson, an officer with the Air Force’s Utah-based 388th Wing, set to be the flying branch’s first operational F-35 unit—told Air Force magazine, a trade publication.

It’s up to Gen. Hawk Carlisle—the head of Air Combat Command, which oversees most of the Air Force’s frontline fighter squadrons—to make the formal declaration. Many observers expect Carlisle to make the call no later than Wednesday.

That will be an event 20 years and $100 billion in the making.

But don’t celebrate quite yet. It could take another 20 years and $300 billion for the Air Force—not to mention the Navy and Marines—to get all 2,400 F-35s they currently plan on buying. And even though the JSF technically could deploy to a conflict zone as early as August, it’s likely the Pentagon will hold the plane back for a few more years as it continues to work out its many bugs.

For while the F-35 might be officially war-ready, that doesn’t mean the military and plane-maker Lockheed Martin have solved all the F-35’s problems. Even with the Air Force’s endorsement, the Joint Strike Fighter is still less maneuverable, more complex, less reliable, and more expensive than its developers promised.

In many ways, the F-35 the Air Force will receive in 2016 is not the plane it thought it would be getting just a few years ago.

Originally conceived in 1996 as an inexpensive, multi-purpose warplane—one that could replace almost all the other frontline jet types in Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps squadrons—the JSF proved devilishly complex.

The Air Force, Navy, and Marines all wanted different things from the fighter. The only thing they really agreed on was stealth—the ability to avoid detection by radars and other sensors by way of radar-scattering wing- and fuselage-shaping and special, energy-absorbing skin coatings.

The Air Force wanted its F-35s to be simple, cheap, and maneuverable, with one engine, a small wing and a slim fuselage, all striking the best balance between speed, payload, and turning ability. The Navy preferred the redundancy of a twin-engine plane but, at the very least, needed its F-35s to be able to operate from aircraft carriers at sea—meaning a bigger wing generating more lift at the cost of speed.

Most vexingly, the Marines demanded that their own F-35s have the ability to take off and land vertically so they can fly from the small, carrier-like Navy assault ships the Marines use to launch amphibious assaults. Vertical capability meant adding a downward blasting secondary engine behind the cockpit, which in turn meant a wider fuselage generating more drag than the Air Force was happy with.

To satisfy all three main customers, Lockheed devised three versions of the JSF—the F-35A for the Air Force, the F-35B for the Marines, and the Navy’s F-35C. To keep the cost down, the military and Lockheed wanted the three versions to be as similar as possible. That meant compromises—largely dictated by the F-35B’s extraordinary vertical takeoff and landing ability. The F-35A has a fatter fuselage than it really needs. The F-35C possesses just one main engine, even though most Navy fighters have two.

But the compromises failed to keep the cost down. Indeed, the combination of competing requirements added complexity to the JSF that drove up the cost. In October 2001, when the Pentagon chose Lockheed to build the JSF, officials expected the design and production of about 3,000 F-35s to set back U.S. taxpayers around $200 billion.

A few years later that figure had ballooned to $400 billion, plus another $600 billion for fuel, parts, and pilot-training over another 30 or 40 years of flying. And that was after the Pentagon cut hundreds of F-35s from the production plan as a cost-saving measure. Engineers struggled to accommodate all the competing demands on the F-35—and ran into trouble. In 2004, the government and Lockheed admitted the JSF was simply too heavy and needed a costly redesign.

What followed was a drumbeat of bad news lasting more than a decade, as the various versions of the F-35 slowly took shape and, starting in 2006, began a lengthy period of test-flying.

The F-35’s power system and engine frequently failed. Its pilots’ high-tech helmets were bulky and buggy. For a while, it couldn’t fly near thunderstorms because it lacked the equipment for channeling lightning strikes. The new plane’s gun wouldn’t be fully operational until 2019. Its software was taking too long to write. Its radar often had to be rebooted mid-flight. And sometimes the F-35 just caught on fire while on the ground.

Perhaps most damning, in mid-2015 someone inside the JSF program leaked a test pilot’s official account of a mock dogfight pitting an F-35 against an Air Force F-16, one of the older planes the F-35 is supposed to replace. “The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage,” the pilot wrote. In layman’s terms, that means the F-35 couldn’t match the F-16 maneuver for maneuver.

The military and Lockheed claimed the media took the pilot’s report out of context and insisted that, in combat, the F-35 would never need to engage in a close-range dogfight, anyway, as it would either shoot down enemy planes at long range or merely avoid them.

In the aftermath of the dogfight report’s leaking, the F-35’s boosters went on a public-relations counteroffensive, frequently highlighting the plane’s supposed superior performance during war games. And in July 2015, the Marines declared their first F-35B squadron to be combat-ready with 10 planes—but then scheduled the unit’s first deployment for 2017, all but admitting that the combat-readiness declaration was a P.R. ploy.

The Air Force had predicted it would designate its first dozen F-35s (out of 180 that Lockheed had delivered to the flying branch) operational between August and December 2016—and was clearly determined not to miss that self-imposed deadline.

Indeed, with the F-35’s software development falling farther and farther behind schedule, in 2013 Gen. Mike Hostage, then the top officer in Air Combat Command, had to make a choice—either give the developers an extra couple of years to work on the F-35 or water down the official definition of “operational” in order to suit the new plane’s condition.

Hostage chose to water down the F-35’s requirements, limiting the range of missions the plane would be capable of undertaking and reducing the variety of weapons it would be able to carry.

The decision was politically motivated. The general “began to realize the overall negative repercussions associated with waiting,” according to an official Air Force account of the decision-making process.

Feedback from lawmakers reinforced Hostage’s concerns. “The read on Congress…was that there was more support overall for an early declaration,” the Air Force recalled. “These opinions came from the negative connotation with having over 180 F-35A aircraft parked on runways without [initial operational capability] and also being two years behind the Marines.”

So when Carlisle gives the 388th Wing’s first dozen F-35s the official thumbs-up, don’t get too excited. Even if Carlisle expects you to do so. “The minute I declare initial operational capability, if the combatant commander called me up and said, ‘We need F-35s,’ I would send them,” Carlisle told reporters in July.

But in reality, it could be years before F-35s see combat. The Air Force wanted until 2018 to keep refining the JSF—and it might just take that time despite the official war-readiness nod.

There’s certainly precedent for a delay. The Air Force declared the F-22 stealth fighter—the F-35’s bigger, slightly older cousin—operational in 2006, but waited eight years to finally send the jets into combat.

[TaiidanTomcat]

There are rumors that the USAF could declare IOC as early as tomorrow. So Axe is getting ahead with the FUD early.

Pretty crazy all the historical revision at work above there. LoL where to even begin? And that's before we get into the outright lies...

The 2017 iwakuni deployment for VMFA-121 was like IOC, scheduled years ahead of time

Had no idea the Marines threw the VTOL requirement on the F-35. I had always thought it was a JSF requirement before the prototypes had even taken to the skies... turns out the Marines just threw it on there after it was already down selected?

I'm even more impressed now

I could go on, but Axe is not interested in accuracy so y bother?

Edited August 1, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[MarkW]

This guy is priceless. STOVL was a component of the JAST program from the get-go. Oh, wait, the Marines insisted on STOVL in 2008, causing seven simultaneous Nunn-McCurdy breaches. Curse their Vexiness!

Yeah, that's the ticket.

[TaiidanTomcat]

This guy is priceless.

You can't win. even is the USAF declares it IOC tomorrow, sends it Syria the next day, and it drops the first bomb right on target that night, It will all be a "PR Stunt" since Syria is "too easy"

There is no cure for this. Even when the F-22 got its first blood in Syria after years of no shooting deployments, people were saying it was completely based on validating the aircraft to the public rather than the needs of the task at hand.

Oh, wait, the Marines insisted on STOVL in 2008, causing seven simultaneous Nunn-McCurdy breaches. Curse their Vexiness!

we just thought we would ask, I mean why not you know? And then the navy was like "yeah cool, just get rid of our second engine. No problem" And the Air force was like "well we wanted a small wing for some reason and a more narrow fuselage??? but ok" (crazy to think how the USN's twin engine F-35 didn't add width to the USAFs F-35!) The Uk and Italians raised their hands and were like "we wanted that STOVL too, if we are being honest-- just too afraid to ask."

I need to send the other services some chocolates. What great guys.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=18395

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=18727

They are so wide! becuz of teh Marinez!! Stahp!

https://teespring-storecontent.s3.amazonaws.com/izcaoLyoHF-urLfsqwvgxg_store_header_image

Edited August 1, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[Alan in Yorktown]

Good points. Active is a more elegant solution, eventually the vehicle would be ridiculous given the cat and mouse nature. And ATGM videos posted by ISIS are very easy to find. None if these systems should rely on a single solution, just like the F-35 and F-22 rely on way more than just shaping to do their job.

The cat / mouse cycle has been around for a long time.

[TaiidanTomcat]

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/08/air-force-declares-f-35a-ioc-major-milestone-for-biggest-us-program/

USAF IOC

[MarkW]

Wait...Axe was wrong?!

[TaiidanTomcat]

Congrats USAF

[Crazy Snap Captain]

Good to see it going. Don't suppose haters are going to stop hating?

[TaiidanTomcat]

Good to see it going. :thumbsup:/> Don't suppose haters are going to stop hating?

Not so long as there is profit involved, no.

[Don]

Well done F-35 and USAF !

Hey Canada...you seeing this?

[TaiidanTomcat]

Well done F-35 and USAF :woo:/> !

Hey Canada...you seeing this?

:cheers:/>

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/canada/canadian-politics/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/f-35-the-aircraft-trudeau-said-is-far-from-working-now-declared-ready-for-combat-by-u-s-air-force

someone noticed.

The plot thickens, the fleet thins:

Canada not required to provide minimum number of jets to NATO: report

Defence Research and Development Canada report suggests that a max of 36 aircraft are required

its an old report, but heres the rest:

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/nato-jets-requirement-1.3706995

More than 30 F-35 pilots said the joint strike fighter outperformed the A-10 in every maneuverability category, according to a report released Thursday afternoon.

The Heritage Foundation report surveyed 31 F-35 pilots about how the plane, built by Lockheed Martin, compares to previous fighter jets like the F-15E and F-16C. While the fifth-generation joint strike fighter lagged behind some aircraft in its ability to turn efficiently, it outperformed the other jets in categories like responsiveness at slow speeds and the ability to recover air speed.

Champions of the A-10 Warthog on Capitol Hill have argued that the aircraft, which is currently conducting operations against the Islamic State, is the best for close air support.

"I am concerned that this airplane is replacing all of our legacy fighters — the whole jack of all trades, master of none," said Rep. Martha McSally, R-Ariz., during a hearing last year.

Subscribe today to get intelligence and analysis on defense and national security issues in your Inbox each weekday morning from veteran journalists Jamie McIntyre and Jacqueline Klimas.

Enter your email

Signup

While the Heritage report did not measure the F-35's close air support ability, the pilots interviewed for the report said the F-35 outranked the A-10 in every category of maneuverability from responsiveness at slow speeds to ability to regain speed after decelerating.

Even with some G-force limitations while the F-35 undergoes more development and testing, one pilot said that the joint strike fighter "exceeded pilot expectations." Once those restrictions are lifted, however, that same pilot said it will be "eye watering."

Pilots also selected the F-35 over other jets 100 percent of the time when they were required to spot a threat outside of their visual range, and more than 80 percent of the time in dogfighting, or the air maneuvering warfare that critics have said the F-35 fails at.

The F-35 has taken a beating on Capitol Hill from lawmakers who argue that the jet is over budget, behind schedule and not capable enough at some requirements. Officials at the Pentagon have repeatedly faced questions during hearings on several problems with the high-profile, high-cost program, including an ejection seat issue that could hurt or kill smaller pilots and a $400,000 helmet that didn't work properly.

Despite that, the report, from analyst and former Thunderbird commander John Venable, urged the Air Force to purchase the full planned buy of 1,763 F-35As, which the service just announced was combat-ready this week.

Todd Harrison, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that the declaration of initial operating capability is a good sign that problems are behind the program.

"I think this is a good signal that it is past a lot of its problems, its technological challenges. I'm sure there'll still be some kinks that come up in the system in the coming years, but for the most part, I think this means that the program has stabilized, they're on a good trajectory, most of the potential for major cost overruns and technological challenges are now behind us," Harrison said at a breakfast event earlier this week. "It's had a lot, it's been through a lot, it's been a difficult program but I think we're getting to the point that most of that is going to be behind us now, I think that's really what the IOC means for that program."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pilots-say-f-35-beats-out-a-10-in-new-report/article/2598652

[Don]

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/canada/canadian-politics/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/f-35-the-aircraft-trudeau-said-is-far-from-working-now-declared-ready-for-combat-by-u-s-air-force

someone noticed.

The plot thickens, the fleet thins:

its an old report, but heres the rest:

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/nato-jets-requirement-1.3706995

Mr. T and his cronies are starting to look like a monkey seducing a football with each passing report... .

:lol: