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.

19 of 280 comments (clear)

  1. Ready to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Ready to by Xest · · Score: 4, Interesting

      People always say this but the reality is no one knows how global security is going to change through the lifetime of an aircraft and aircraft themselves are evolved to deal with new and emerging threats. People said the same about Europe's Eurofighter Typhoon 5 years ago, and yet it's already having to intercept 4.5th Gen Russian fighters that are infringing European airspace in the Baltic.

      In many ways though it kind of works like nuclear deterrents and MAD; in large part the reason we don't have to send things like F-22s up against Su-37s is precisely because Russia knows if it forces such a confrontation it'll lose. The very fact we have the qualitative edge is in itself a reason for not having to use it. If we ditch it because we believe we don't need it, then we're more likely to find that we need it, only then we wont have it and we'll have already lost.

    2. Re:Ready to by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One word: Drones.

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:Ready to by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      He does a bit, doesn't he?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re:Ready to by bobbied · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      The F-35 is not intended to be an air superiority fighter, it's intended to be a multi-role close air support (bomb delivery platform) that can hold it's own in an environment where control of the air may still be an open question. It is the role of the Air Force's F-22 to clear the skies of the opposition and engage them before they reach the F-35's area of operation. So, the F-35's A-A offensive capability is intended to keep it flying (i.e. so it can get away) and not so it can win a dogfight. It's primary purpose is to be an economical delivery truck, designed to deliver death and destruction on the enemy's ground forces and survive the round trip. For that role, it is well suited should it ever meet it's design specifications.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re:Ready to by hawguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nothing about the F-35 precludes development of drones though, and the West already seems to be leading the way on that front too.

      Except the cost -- you don't spend over a trillion dollars (projected cost for deployment + operations) on a platform, then let it sit idle while you send in the drones.

      There's no reason the F-35 couldn't in itself be the basis of a drone.

      Again, cost. Why turn a $150M+ airframe into a drone when you can use a purpose built drone for a fraction of the cost? Removing the pilot from the plane removes a lot of design constraints, so it makes little sense to turn a human piloted aircraft into a drone.

  2. The irony is... by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:The irony is... by JeffOwl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The aircraft is already run by computers. It could probably become a drone with a software update.

    2. Re:The irony is... by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The aircraft is already run by computers. It could probably become a drone with a software update.

      It certainly could, but you don't build drones that powerful, complicated, and expensive for a variety of reasons. Since they don't need pilots, it makes a lot more sense to build more but cheaper aircraft, since that way you get more redundancy.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:The irony is... by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The good thing about air is that it's mostly devoid of objects. So everything that shows up on radar can be considered "an object of interest".

      From a programmers perspective, I would think that autonomous flying is a much easier problem to solve than autonomous driving.

  3. Wasn't this the multi-trillion-dollar failure? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Informative

    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?

    1. Re: Wasn't this the multi-trillion-dollar failure? by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      The ejection risk is to lightweight pilots ( < 136 lbs / 62 kg). The temporary solution thusfar has just been to ban lightweight pilots from flying it. Ejection is an inherently very stressful act on the body. For lightweight pilots on the F35, it's too stressful.

      Only the F-35A has a 25mm cannon at all; obviously systems common to all aircraft have priority. The cannon is new - a lighter and more accurate version of the GAU-12/U. The schedule is for the gun to go online in 2017. It was on schedule last I checked.

      As for the GP, I'll let actual pilots of the aircraft respond. And note that that is about dogfighting, an increasingly less relevant portion of an aircraft's activity. The whole philosophy behind the F-35 is to detect and engage targets from further away than they can detect and engage the F-35. Aka, if the F-35 is in a dogfight, it's already done something wrong to begin with.

      --
      Fox: "I think we should call it... your grave!" Cast: "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
  4. Re:Correction. by GrumpySteen · · Score: 4, Funny

    "first to Red Flag exercises, then as a "theater security package" to Europe and the Asia-Pacific. "

    They transposed "security theater."

    You wish. The truth is that the MPAA has bribed Congress into authorizing military air strikes against anyone who dares to carry a cell phone capable of recording video into a theater. Gotta stop them pirates at all cost, after all.

  5. Window dressing: IOC does NOT equal combat ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:Lawn Dart by JeffOwl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    By stating how "bad" the F-16 works with one engine you have eliminated your credibility on the subject with a single sentence. Have a nice day.

  7. Re:I will believe it when a PILOT says that by jfdavis668 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  8. Government-flavored FUD. by geekmux · · Score: 4, Informative

    "...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.

  9. Augustine's law valid for the foreseeable future by farialima · · Score: 3, Interesting
    per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , enacted in 1984:

    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.

  10. Mission Accomplished! by DarthVain · · Score: 4, Interesting

    :)

    And by "mission" I mean to siphon as much money from the taxpayer into into Lockheed Martin's bank accounts...