Do you still want the F-35?

[mrklean]

So you feels its ok to equip our young men and women with substandard weapons

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Says the guy that wants to use 30-40 yr old planes.

That 30 year old jet is still better than the F-35 piece of shyt!!!

[CID1990]

I'm actually trying to figure out what shoot down that was. It was post Vietnam, and it was air to air. Anybody know?

Speicher.

Yep you're right I had forgotten that had turned out to be air to air.

I would love to hear how that one happened.

[houndawg]

Speicher.

Yep you're right I had forgotten that had turned out to be air to air.

I would love to hear how that one happened.

Probably wasn't one of our Top Guns.

[Ibanez]

Says the guy that wants to use 30-40 yr old planes.

That 30 year old jet is still better than the F-35 piece of shyt!!!

No. It isn't.

[CID1990]

Says the guy that wants to use 30-40 yr old planes.

That 30 year old jet is still better than the F-35 piece of shyt!!!

Even with its development problems the F-35 is in a much different category than any of our Cold War aircraft.

Remember the media feeding frenzy over the V-22? You dont hear about it that much anymore because it is now performing as advertised. It still has detractors, but they dont fly it.

The F-35 will eventually absorb its own R&D costs and it will perform as advertised.

[Col Hogan]

That 30 year old jet is still better than the F-35 piece of shyt!!!

Even with its development problems the F-35 is in a much different category than any of our Cold War aircraft.

Remember the media feeding frenzy over the V-22? You dont hear about it that much anymore because it is now performing as advertised. It still has detractors, but they dont fly it.

The F-35 will eventually absorb its own R&D costs and it will perform as advertised.

While you are spot on, my concern is those R&D costs are forcing us to retire needed aircraft too early because of budget pressures...the A-10 is a prime example...

It is the best CAS aircraft ever made...but to pay the F-35 bills, the Air Force wants all of them out of the inventory by July 2019...the F-35 will not be CAS-ready by then.

The corporate argument is that the F15E Strike Eagle is still available...and a new idea being floated will actually dedicate several Strike Eagle and F-16 squadrons to CAS...it might work, but if I was a grunt, I'd feel better with the A-10 overhead...

[Ibanez]

Even with its development problems the F-35 is in a much different category than any of our Cold War aircraft.

Remember the media feeding frenzy over the V-22? You dont hear about it that much anymore because it is now performing as advertised. It still has detractors, but they dont fly it.

The F-35 will eventually absorb its own R&D costs and it will perform as advertised.

While you are spot on, my concern is those R&D costs are forcing us to retire needed aircraft too early because of budget pressures...the A-10 is a prime example...

It is the best CAS aircraft ever made...but to pay the F-35 bills, the Air Force wants all of them out of the inventory by July 2019...the F-35 will not be CAS-ready by then.

The corporate argument is that the F15E Strike Eagle is still available...and a new idea being floated will actually dedicate several Strike Eagle and F-16 squadrons to CAS...it might work, but if I was a grunt, I'd feel better with the A-10 overhead...

That's something nobody thinks about in terms of the F-35: it's replacing multiple systems. The costs, across the board, will adjust. The F-35 will work. Remember all the hoopla over the C-17? Now it's the darling of the Armed Forces. That program received the same criticism as the JSF.

[AZGrizFan]

kleanex and his bitching about the F-35 is like the sun rising in the east. Predictably, this thread has gone the same way as the other 30 or so he's started...he's getting his ass handed to him with facts. Again.

Some people are slow learners.

[Ibanez]

Klean thinks our support of the F-35 excuses cost overruns and problems. It doesn't. However, some of us understand the job that is being undertaken and realize that with anything new m, there will be problems. Personally, I'm anti variant. Make 2 types and perfect that. Just my two cents.

[CID1990]

Klean thinks our support of the F-35 excuses cost overruns and problems. It doesn't. However, some of us understand the job that is being undertaken and realize that with anything new m, there will be problems. Personally, I'm anti variant. Make 2 types and perfect that. Just my two cents.

That would be a departure from our history of modifying successful platforms for diverse roles. For example- the F-15 has at least 4 variants currently in use. The F-18 has 3.

[93henfan]

I know the MC variant has been a long pole in the F35 tent, but I think any AV8B pilot will tell you that it's needed. Harriers are very long in the tooth at this point and were never a very good platform for fighting in the first place.

[CID1990]

I know the MC variant has been a long pole in the F35 tent, but I think any AV8B pilot will tell you that it's needed. Harriers are very long in the tooth at this point and were never a very good platform for fighting in the first place.

Now THERES a piece of garbage for you

A VTOL aircraft that when fully loaded has a longer takeoff roll than a fully loaded F-18

It was a good idea back in the day of cold war base and runway denial tactics but it just isnt that capable

[93henfan]

I know the MC variant has been a long pole in the F35 tent, but I think any AV8B pilot will tell you that it's needed. Harriers are very long in the tooth at this point and were never a very good platform for fighting in the first place.

Now THERES a piece of garbage for you

A VTOL aircraft that when fully loaded has a longer takeoff roll than a fully loaded F-18

It was a good idea back in the day of cold war base and runway denial tactics but it just isnt that capable

And it's loud as fuck for a very long time at take off and landing and when they're just hovering the fuck around the tarmac. I never slept very soundly during my 18 months or so stationed at MCAS Yuma (a Harrier base).

But yeah, they served the runway denial purpose you mentioned. I was with the MWSS unit at Yuma and they could lay down matting, set up a FARP, and have a fixed wing unit set up at the tip of the spear in a few hours. Cool stuff.

[Chizzang]

The A-10 Warthog
You just can't shoot them f*ckers out of the sky

[houndawg]

The A-10 Warthog
You just can't shoot them f*ckers out of the sky

I used to work for the company that made the 30mm GAU8 ammo. Col. Hogan is right, big mistake to get rid of the A-10. I feel nothing but pity for the poor bastards whose tank is spotted by one.

[Col Hogan]

The A-10 Warthog
You just can't shoot them f*ckers out of the sky

Quite a story behind that plane...it happened during the push into Baghdad...

Two A-10s were "fishing" along a highway...one would fly low over bridges trying to lure out Republician Guard troops hiding under the overpasses...a second Warthog flying a few seconds behind would clobber them if they popped out...

This time, the Iraqis waited for the second jet to pass and they opened up on it...and you see the results...

The woman flying that plane did one hell of a job getting back and landing safely...

[mrklean]

The A-10 Warthog
You just can't shoot them f*ckers out of the sky

Quite a story behind that plane...it happened during the push into Baghdad...

Two A-10s were "fishing" along a highway...one would fly low over bridges trying to lure out Republician Guard troops hiding under the overpasses...a second Warthog flying a few seconds behind would clobber them if they popped out...

This time, the Iraqis waited for the second jet to pass and they opened up on it...and you see the results...

The woman flying that plane did one hell of a job getting back and landing safely...

I remember that U.S. Air Force wanting to get rid of this plane in the early 90's.

[kalm]

Quite a story behind that plane...it happened during the push into Baghdad...

Two A-10s were "fishing" along a highway...one would fly low over bridges trying to lure out Republician Guard troops hiding under the overpasses...a second Warthog flying a few seconds behind would clobber them if they popped out...

This time, the Iraqis waited for the second jet to pass and they opened up on it...and you see the results...

The woman flying that plane did one hell of a job getting back and landing safely...

I remember that U.S. Air Force wanting to get rid of this plane in the early 90's.

Character and integrity are involved in this battle-of-the-warplanes in the following way (as sketched out in my story): The A-10, which is flown by the Air Force, has always had a strange stepchild status there. It is truly beloved by the Army, whose ground troops the A-10 has saved or protected in so many engagements. To the Air Force, in contrast, this mission of "close air support" has never been a budgetary or cultural priority — as opposed to bombing, aerial combat, "air superiority" in general, and even transport.

In a rationally organized defense system, the A-10 would belong to the Army, which needs and loves it. The Army could include it in its budgets, keep as many flying as possible, make it the center of its close-air-support arsenal. But for bureaucratic reasons known in shorthand as the "Key West agreement," the Army directly controls armed helicopters but not many fixed-wing airplanes. Thus through the decades we've seen a long push-pull struggle between the Air Force, chronically eager to dump the A-10 and make way for other models, including now the troubled F-35, and the Army, which wants the A-10 but has no direct way to keep it in the budget.

Several weeks ago I mentioned the truly alarming news that a three-star Air Force general had warned his officers against speaking up about the A-10's (very strong) combat record. As the Arizona Daily Independent reported, Air Force Maj. Gen. James Post told officers that if word of his views ever got out he would deny it, but he wanted them to know that passing information to Congress about the A-10's effectiveness constituted "treason." When the news came out, the Air Force didn't even deny the comments; a spokesperson just called them "hyperbole."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... me/386075/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[93henfan]

Good discussion there Kalm. Also consider the service who crosses both missions of AF and Army: USMC.

I had the interesting opportunity to have A-10s at my disposal one time during a training exercise at MCAGCC Twentynine Palms. My intent was to get close air support, but the Air Force definition of close air support is not nearly as close as the Marine Corps'. The A-10 pilots were in some measure of disbelief when our FACs gave them target coordinates.

A-10 pilot: You want us to drop MK-82 there? Closest friendlies are only a click and a half away.

USMC FAC: Pussy.

[Ibanez]

Good discussion there Kalm. Also consider the service who crosses both missions of AF and Army: USMC.

I had the interesting opportunity to have A-10s at my disposal one time during a training exercise at MCAGCC Twentynine Palms. My intent was to get close air support, but the Air Force definition of close air support is not nearly as close as the Marine Corps'. The A-10 pilots were in some measure of disbelief when our FACs gave them target coordinates.

A-10 pilot: You want us to drop MK-82 there? Closest friendlies are only a click and a half away.

USMC FAC: Pussy.

Ha. Good one.

[93henfan]

This will warm Klean's heart:

https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/ ... e/1240931/

Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $5,577,714,486 modification to a previously awarded F-35 Lightning II low-rate initial production (LRIP) Lot 11 advance acquisition contract (N00019-16-C-0033)...

...An undefinitized not-to-exceed contract modification to fund procurement of 50 F-35 Partner and FMS aircraft for $2.2 billion is anticipated within the month of July 2017.

[mrklean]

This will warm Klean's heart:

https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/ ... e/1240931/

Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $5,577,714,486 modification to a previously awarded F-35 Lightning II low-rate initial production (LRIP) Lot 11 advance acquisition contract (N00019-16-C-0033)...

...An undefinitized not-to-exceed contract modification to fund procurement of 50 F-35 Partner and FMS aircraft for $2.2 billion is anticipated within the month of July 2017.

[93henfan]

Hahah. I've signed a contract for $1.5 Billion (and sweated all ten years that nothing litigious came of it - it finally expired in 2016 whew!), but I've never done a contract mod that was $2B or, egad, $5B. That's just a whale of a contract.

[mrklean]

Hahah. I've signed a contract for $1.5 Billion (and sweated all ten years that nothing litigious came of it - it finally expired in 2016 whew!), but I've never done a contract mod that was $2B or, egad, $5B. That's just a whale of a contract.

Is it worth it in the long run?

[Aho Old Guy]

Hahah. I've signed a contract for $1.5 Billion (and sweated all ten years that nothing litigious came of it - it finally expired in 2016 whew!), but I've never done a contract mod that was $2B or, egad, $5B. That's just a whale of a contract.

Is it worth it in the long run?

Unit cost of the JSF (don't know what rig) is less than $100m now, and my understanding is they have kicked ass in live exercises.

If Uncle Sugar maintains its current force structure, "it is what it is" regardless of sticker shock. I'm much more comfortable investing in the F-35 than spending $400 billion over the next decade rejuvenating our nukes. AND, don't get me started on 'missile defense' -- that gravy train is a black hole...