Slashdot Mirror
US Air Force Declares F-35A Ready For Combat (defensenews.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Defense News: The U.S. Air Force on Tuesday declared its first squadron of F-35As ready for battle, 15 years after Lockheed Martin won the contract to make the plane. The milestone means that the service can now send its first operational F-35 formation -- the 34th Fighter Squadron located at Hill Air Force Base, Utah -- into combat operations anywhere in the world. The service, which plans to buy 1,763 F-35As, is the single-largest customer of the joint strike fighter program, which also includes the U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Navy and a host of governments worldwide. "Given the national security strategy, we need it," [Air Combat Command (ACC) head Gen. Herbert "Hawk" Carlisle] said. "You look at the potential adversaries out there, or the potential environments where we have to operate this airplane, the attributes that the F-35 brings -- the ability to penetrate defensive airspace, the ability to deliver precision munitions with a sensor suite that fuses data from multiple information sources -- is something our nation needs." Carlisle said in July that even though he would feel comfortable sending the F-35 to a fight as soon as the jet becomes operational, ACC has formed a "deliberate path" where the aircraft would deploy in stages: first to Red Flag exercises, then as a "theater security package" to Europe and the Asia-Pacific. The fighter probably won't deploy to the Middle East to fight the Islamic State group any earlier than 2017, he said, but if a combatant commander asked for the capability, "I'd send them down in a heartbeat because they're very, very good." The declaration is another achievement for the $379 billion program -- the Pentagon's largest weapons project -- following the declaration of a first squadron of F-35s ready for combat made by the U.S. Marine Corps in July 2015.
"first to Red Flag exercises, then as a "theater security package" to Europe and the Asia-Pacific. "
They transposed "security theater."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Its unlikely it will ever engage another jet in a combat role, countries we fight are too poor for jets, countries with jets have too much power to attack and know we are too powerful to attack too or our allies.
Its ready to be a glorified bomber, bombing mostly suspected terrorists.
that it could well be obsolete in less time than it took to develop it if computer controlled drones keep advancing at their current rate. There was a story not long ago about a computer flying a simulated fighter outperforming a top gun in a dogfight. Move technology on 15 years and putting a pilot in a fighter could seem rather quaint.
I thought we were running articles about how the F35-A carries shit for weapons, turns like an aircraft carrier, can't dogfight, and cost hundreds of billions of dollars every year for decades only to turn out a worthless piece of shit after the trillions settled. Did Slashdot get bought recently?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Brand new already obsolete overpriced single engine fighter to scatter sheet metal over the landscape. I just don't understand why in hell they had to have a single engine fighter. The F-16 showed how bad that works like the F-105 before it. They may have it operational but it'll be another 10 years before they'll have most of the bugs out of it. They'd better start laying down plans for a new fighter now so they can have that ready to go in 20 years or so.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/170838/a-closer-look-at-dot%26e-report-on-f_35-%3Ci%3E(updated)%3C%C2%A7i%3E.html
The Block 2B version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which the Marine Corps declared operational in July last year, is not capable of unsupported combat against any serious threat, according to Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation (DOT&E).
http://aviationweek.com/defense/test-report-points-f-35-s-combat-limits-0?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20160201_AW-05_373&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1
http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/01/DOT%26E%202015%20F-35%20Annual%20Report.pdf
The pentagon must be geting pretty desperate.
I think you mean the f-104. They were notorious for killing pilots. German pilots in particular had unkind things to say about them. The F-14 was the Navy's swing wing fighter.
Upon first reading, I though it was April the first!
The F-35 is a failure already. That wont stop them from buying them though.
Okay, here you go. Want another? ;)
Fox: "I think we should call it... your grave!" Cast: "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
Marines already declared IOC last year with the prior block of capabilities.
What amiga3d said: Either you or your dad dropped a zero. The F-104 didn't get a very bad rep in the USAF, because they got rid of the damn thing as fast as they could; some 90% of the production was exported in deals you could smell from a mile upwind.
Can the 20mm gun fire and HIT what it is aimed at? Last I read, the SOFTWARE wasn't going to be ready until 2017. It's "suppose" to replace the A-10, which is a JOKE in itself. One shot from a 20mm ground gun, or 40mm bofors will bring it down, but on the A-10, it will shake it off and continue to fly, minus parts of the wings, engines etc.
What plane needs a pilot anymore?
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
The F-104 wasn't designed poorly, but it was designed as a very high speed fighter. At low speed the plane was hard to handle. Pilots weren't getting enough experience on it before having an accident. This was before fly by wire and computer control. The F-16 is designed to be highly unstable, but is controlled by its computer. A pilot could not control one without computer assistance. Technology makes a huge difference.
"...You look at the potential adversaries out there, or the potential environments..."
Uhhh, potential? That's the best you can do here? Exactly how many metric fucktons of FUD does one need in order to justify over 1,700 aircraft and a $380 billion dollar price tag?
This kind of shit scares me because of what the US might be inclined to get involved in, for no other reason other than to justify this little shopping spree.
There were lots of planes that people called a failure at the start, and turned into outstanding aircraft. We can't get enough V-22s now. The WWII P-51 was a pathetic aircraft until they changed the engine and added the 85 gal fuel tank behind the pilot. The fuel tank made the plane unstable, but since you had to take off from England and climb to altitude before flying to Germany, you burned all that fuel before you got into the fight. Suddenly you had an outstanding long range aircraft.
Law Number XVI: In the year 2054, the entire defense budget will purchase just one tactical aircraft. This aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3½ days each per week except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day.
Neat. The US can kill more people, faster. Meanwhile US citizens are in debt up to their eyeballs for education and healthcare.
I don't respond to AC's.
:)
And by "mission" I mean to siphon as much money from the taxpayer into into Lockheed Martin's bank accounts...
Ready for combat*
(*if used by enemy forces)
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
...as long as *actual* operational usability isn't a factor.
They're at least as combat-ready as the other giant contractor-subsidy program, the LCS ships...ie, pretty much not, and likely a death-trap for the unfortunate crew that have to operate them in actual combat anytime soon.
-Styopa
The F-104 had a few rather "colorful" nicknames with the German pilots: Witwenmacher (widowmaker), Erdnagel (earth-nail), fliegender Sarg (flying coffin) oder Sargfighter (coffin fighter, but in German in rhymes with Starfighter).
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why do I foresee a similar fate for the F-35?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Someone suggested this movie in the comments over on The Register the other day and it's about the development about the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The comment from the General sounds like it could be taken directly from the movie. Actually the whole F-35 program is very similar to how the Bradley played out.
some 90% of the production was exported in deals you could smell from a mile upwind.
As documented by Bob Calvert!
They will never know the simple pleasure of a monkey knife fight
Umm... no.
1. The original ejector seat was shooting the pilot out of the plane by ejecting him DOWNWARDS. As you might imagine this could (and did) lead to a few (un)foreseeable problems at lower altitudes. Even after they realized that this might not be a good idea and replaced it with normal ejectors, they were FAR from zero/zero. And no, zero/zero was absolutely within capabilities of the times, we're not talking WW2 here. And the separation of seat and pilot after eject was even more of a gamble.
2. The plane had a take-off speed of 400 km/h. At 420 km/h, the gear structure could be damaged due to drag. That means you had about 2 second between take off and gear up. Provided you were not heavy, that is. With halfway decent load, you COULD NOT even retract the gear successfully. What would you do? You would slowly (because fast is impossible unless you want to ruin your gear totally) climb to a halfway decent height, switch to landing configuration so you could slow down (and sink while you're at it), and then get the gear in. While you're descending. Now hope that the engine doesn't stall or you're fucked. Because you can't get the gear out in time and your ejector seat... see above.
3. BLC required a running engine at landing. No engine, no landing because you'd stall. Invariably.
4. If your flaps were damaged asymmetrically, extending them for a landing led to uncontrollable rolling. Impossible to compensate. I think I needn't go into detail why uncontrollable rolling while you're already slow, close to stall and not too far above ground is a BAD thing. And now take a wild guess whether the damage control system would inform you about something as insignificant as this.
5. The hydraulic afterburner nozzle failed open in case of a hydraulic breach (e.g. due to faulty material or combat damage) resulting in a flameout. You could sometimes restart the engine, provided you had time and altitude. If you could not ... see point 2.
And so on. That were just the "big 5" Starfighter killers. There were many more "wtf, how does THIS happen" moments.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Listen, I love the military, ok? Just so we know where we're standing. Especially anything that flies. And this is why I am deeply worried that something like the F-35 is being developed. Because the very last thing whoever greenlit this was thinking about were the pilots and the people who actually have to trust their life to this piece of turbine powered garbage.
This is a prime example how pork-barrel politics ruin the US military. Funny enough, that was quite similar in the latter years of Nazi Germany. There, too, infighting and different branches of military and military industry trying to score off each other sure helped the war efforts of the Allies.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
According to the summary the Marines had a squadron ready last year.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Who else has the money to buy them?
Apples vs. Oranges. You had a point?
...the combat readiness of an aircraft can really only be determined by actual combat.
What's worse, a system like the F-35 that relies so heavily on computers won't be tested adequately until it goes up against a first world power and their various jamming capabilities, and adversaries with 5th Generation fighters.
Shooting fish in a barrel over the Middle East doesn't really count.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
As if that has ever been a reason to buy or not buy military hardware.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
another achievement for the $379 billion program
After spending $379 billion dollars, delivering a handful of jets seven years late does not count as an "achievement". If someone gave my stupidest cousin $379 billion dollars and 15 years, there's at least a fair chance that he might cure cancer or something by accident.
It's bloated, and under-performing.
Just don't get it wet*, and don't refuel it after midnight.
* Won't be too big a problem in the West's lucrative Endless War (TM) sandbox.
You're confused, we can and did crank out f35 like donuts. defense contracting is a major part of the economy. losing a few doesn't change anything.
39 year old me is kinda sad that there won't be a Microprose Commodore 64 sim for this new plane.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
350 was the take off speed under best conditions. No payload, perfect runway. Usual take off weight put the take off speed into the ballpark of 400 and safety considerations required a gearup speed of no more than 420. 480 was actually already the speed when damage to your undercarriage was getting into the area of "likely".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
they call that "The Danger Zone"
For military contractor's, profit and loss are determined not by the market, but by a firm's ability to navigate politics. This leads to wasteful spending and delayed results, such as a F-35 Jet that’s still inferior to the F-16 which was invented in 1970. Professor Chris Coyne explains more in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
How is it Apples vs Oranges? It's money, you fucking idiot. There's no "apple money" vs "orange money". $196 billion is always a smaller amount than $379 billion. My point, which is obvious if people didn't want things spoon fed to them all the time, is that the F-35 program is a complete waste of time and money, especially when considering the Space Shuttle program (and NASA in general) was often denigrated as wasteful pork spending but managed to achieve much more for a lot less.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
One: This is a cost we really need not be taking on. These are monies far better spent on drones, and defense systems. With today's technologies, there seems very little reasoning to spend sooooo much on such an overly-expensive airplane. Cut the quantity to 33% to 50%. Then use the remaining funds to improve our other important defenses and drones. And then take the leftover funds and help our citizens! How about funding our Vets? ...education? ...infrastructure jobs?
Two: Now that this abomination of a weapon is 'ready' to deploy, it will be interesting to see the issues and bugs this fighting platform (still) has. Prepare to be smothered in stories about failures and excuses...
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
It's not about capability. It never was.
Each 'drone pilot' can theoretically have numerous additional aircraft in reserve if one is destroyed.
Military drones will become substantially less expensive to manufacture than manned aircraft in a very short period of time.
The insurance costs and long term support costs for personnel directly engaged in combat, not mention prior flight training costs in a cockpit, are eliminated by the use of drones.
'Brittle connection'? Nobody cares about that. The main focus is on total cost and strategic return. It always has been. That's why military forces all over the world moved ahead from muskets, swords, and horse back riding to automatic weapons and long range tactics.
'Full awareness' drones are more likely, where each drone will have multiple personnel monitoring individual systems. This essentially gives each drone the abilities of 10 to 100 pilots with 'eyes on' without the risk of losing them in combat and near instantaneous deployment turn around of those staff if a craft is lost. Having the seat outside the aircraft is not a problem since we can now have a very small and fast aircraft with 100 or more people on board (virtually).
You can't do that with manned aircraft. The on board personnel take up too much room, consume too much fuel, and are a long term insurance liability.
The same will happen to ground combat forces in a very short period of time. One small robot that can be easily replaced with a room full of 'full awareness' operators.
This also means the era of companies selling manned field weapons systems, airborne or otherwise, is quickly drawing to a close. Product focus will shift to remotely tethered systems. In a couple decades anything with a human operator will be considered obsolete.