F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Delft the same could be said for Tibet and East Turkistan aka Uyghurstan aka Xinjing but this is not the thread or the forum for such topics . This is The F35 thread and we have (despite my attempt to get back to it) wondered way off topic.

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

RepeaT_MyselF said:

Speaking of readiness thoughout the whole F35 program I have been wondering. Given the limitations of the aircraft and it shear numbers and fact it is targeted to replace just about every thing would the three US services not need to maintain a number of operational either vintage or specially procured fighter aircraft to engage and maintain DACT? And if so which platforms ? Would they use the future T-X, maintain F16s and expanding there use by the Navy and Marines to replace the very old F5 or run a special buy of some other platform like the flanker or fulcrum?

Click to expand...

Back to topic
Given the age of the F5 and the pending retirement of mig 21s as well as Chinese and Russian generation 4 fighters like mig 29 and J10 with the F35 targeted across the american military field DACT mission roles will likely have to get moved to the front particularly for the Marines as they plan a pure lightning fleet. That means any inter unit training dogfight would be a lightning on lightning engagement. So Marines would be needing to get lessons in dissimilar air combat tactics perhaps more them there naval or air force brethren.

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

ahadicow said:

It's a rebuttal of what you said. If I stepped on politics, I'm sorry, one can only be so careful. A separate thread would be fine, I have no intention to derail this one. As to F35, I have made my view clear. It's a weapon for showbiz. If what you said is true, that US need to prepare for self-defence, It would be far better off with more and better-upgraded F22.

Click to expand...

Actually..not.

The F-22 is not an attack aircraft. It was not designed to be.

They could make one of it, but then they would have to essentially do to it what they did with the F-15 to get the strike version, the F-15E, which is essentially a completely rebuilt and new aircraft for the most part.

In addition, the F-22 can never do the STOVL role required by the Marines or the navies of several of our allied nations including the UK.

I will not argue against the fact that the US needs more F-22s. We do...but not to make it into an attack aircraft, rather to punctuate without doubt its amazing air dominance capabilities and have enough of them to make that stick in the case of a high intensity conflict...which we must always be prepared for and not think it cannot happen in this "enlightened age," because, quite frankly, it is not an enlightened age in that manner of speaking at all.

No. the F-35 is a perfect answer for what it was intially designed for, an attack air craft with very strong self defense capabilities...but not a dedicated air dominance fighter.

If it were kept within those boundaries for its Air Force, Marine, and Navy roles, it would be fine...and I expect with the Navy and Marines at least it will be, because that is what they are acquiring it for.

If allowed (and because of its essential nature to the Marines and the Navy...and the Air Force too if truth be told...I expect it will be), it will move forward, costs will continue to drop, and ultimatley, like the F-16 before it, it will be the largest aircraft project of all time for the United States and be exported to more countries and have more total copies built than any before it...and what's more, it will perform very well within those design guidleins.

And it will not be because of words or motivations like show biz, or show off, or Hollywood in the least...it will be because of the tens of thousands of dedicated American and our allies who are overcoming the tecnological hurtles...and logistics hurdles to bring it into existance according to the requirements outlined by a very good group of military planners who have called for it. None of those people are cheezy or political (though there is politics as I have said on this thread at some higher levels and particularly amongst politicians), or looking for some kind of misguided honorifics...they are professionals trying to do the best they can for their country and their profession with a very difficult, cutting edge design...and they are getting it done despite the difficulties that are bound to be associated with the development and production of such a system.

We can re-convene in ten years and see which of us is correct on this point. I'll look forward to that day.

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Delft the same could be said for Tibet and East Turkistan aka Uyghurstan aka Xinjing but this is not the thread or the forum for such topics . This is The F35 thread and we have (despite my attempt to get back to it) wondered way off topic.

Click to expand...

I think you've forgotten american indians! I don't think they want to see europeans on their land!

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Jeff Head said:

Actually..not.

The F-22 is not an attack aircraft. It was not designed to be.

They could make one of it, but then they would have to essentially do to it what they did with the F-15 to get the strike version, the F-15E, which is essentially a completely rebuilt and new aircraft for the most part.

In addition, the F-22 can never do the STOVL role required by the Marines or the navies of several of our allied nations including the UK.

I will not argue against the fact that the US needs more F-22s. We do...but not to make it into an attack aircraft, rather to punctuate without doubt its amazing air dominance capabilities and have enough of them to make that stick in the case of a high intensity conflict...which we must always be prepared for and not think it cannot happen in this "enlightened age," because, quite frankly, it is not an enlightened age in that manner of speaking at all.

No. the F-35 is a perfect answer for what it was intially designed for, an attack air craft with very strong self defense capabilities...but not a dedicated air dominance fighter.

If it were kept within those boundaries for its Air Force, Marine, and Navy roles, it would be fine...and I expect with the Navy and Marines at least it will be, because that is what they are acquiring it for.

If allowed (and because of its essential nature to the Marines and the Navy...and the Air Force too if truth be told...I expect it will be), it will move forward, costs will continue to drop, and ultimatley, like the F-16 before it, it will be the largest aircraft project of all time for the United States and be exported to more countries and have more total copies built than any before it...and what's more, it will perform very well within those design guidleins.

And it will not be because of words or motivations like show biz, or show off, or Hollywood in the least...it will be because of the tens of thousands of dedicated American and our allies who are overcoming the tecnological hurtles...and logistics hurdles to bring it into existance according to the requirements outlined by a very good group of military planners who have called for it. None of those people are cheezy or political (though there is politics as I have said on this thread at some higher levels and particularly amongst politicians), or looking for some kind of misguided honorifics...they are professionals trying to do the best they can for their country and their profession with a very difficult, cutting edge design...and they are getting it done despite the difficulties that are bound to be associated with the development and production of such a system.

We can re-convene in ten years and see which of us is correct on this point. I'll look forward to that day.

Click to expand...

You have talked nothing about using F-35 as a tool in the real defense: the prevention of attack against US soil in tranditional, nuclear or covert military means. You have talked, instead, about F-35's ability to destroy ground targets and STOVL and branches of US military and UK. I am lost as to how any of those topics are linked to the safety of US government or its people.

If your point is F-35 will increase US ability to wage wars at all places of the world for whatever reason it might have: economical, political, "freedom and democracy" or the mere enjoyment of it, then we don't need to have this debate; we totally agree. F-35 is one of the most sophisticated killing machines out there, too sophisticated actually since there are far cheaper and faster way of causing death and destruction in another country. But of course, when we go down the killing route, money isn't a thing, you can pay anything for anything that "works".

And while we are having this coversation, we should also pretend Russian and Chinese are sub-humans. They don't deserve security. So it's totally ok to export this advance killer to states that has historically rubbed them the wrong way(to say the least), and park it on their doorsteps so they don't need to fly more than an hour to see this bird that could drop bombs on them at anytime. They don't know fear and hate and would not have kept score on how many times US had humuliated them. Thus, they would never devise anything that is targeted to US that would end up either used in a war or, in the best case, complicating real US defenses.

So we don't all disagree, do we? We agree on the attack potential of F35 and its value as a tool to agitate people at the other end of the globe, but to tie those up with US defense and security, we have to accept that war = security, offense = defense, and, arms race = good economy. I suspect we can find all those definitions on the dictionary used by LM.

After all, we only have one disagreement, that is, what rationality is all about.

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

ahadicow said:

You have talked nothing about using F-35 as a tool in the real defense: the prevention of attack against US soil in tranditional, nuclear or covert military means. You have talked, instead, about F-35's ability to destroy ground targets and STOVL and branches of US military and UK. I am lost as to how any of those topics are linked to the safety of US government or its people.

If your point is F-35 will increase US ability to wage wars at all places of the world for whatever reason it might have: economical, political, "freedom and democracy" or the mere enjoyment of it, then we don't need to have this debate; we totally agree. F-35 is one of the most sophisticated killing machines out there, too sophisticated actually since there are far cheaper and faster way of causing death and destruction in another country. But of course, when we go down the killing route, money isn't a thing, you can pay anything for anything that "works".

And while we are having this coversation, we should also pretend Russian and Chinese are sub-humans. They don't deserve security. So it's totally ok to export this advance killer to states that has historically rubbed them the wrong way(to say the least), and park it on their doorsteps so they don't need to fly more than an hour to see this bird that could drop bombs on them at anytime. They don't know fear and hate and would not have kept score on how many times US had humuliated them. Thus, they would never devise anything that is targeted to US that would end up either used in a war or, in the best case, complicating real US defenses.

So we don't all disagree, do we? We agree on the attack potential of F35 and its value as a tool to agitate people at the other end of the globe, but to tie those up with US defense and security, we have to accept that war = security, offense = defense, and, arms race = good economy. I suspect we can find all those definitions on the dictionary used by LM.

After all, we only have one disagreement, that is, what rationality is all about.

Click to expand...

Actually ahadicow too, and her name was Lady, Actually Super-Lady, and I know thats OFF-TOPIC, but she was a lovely Polled Hereford, she met an untimely end with grass tetne, so lets get back to the F-35, it doesn't seem like you're entirely unbiased yourself, the F-35 is an attack aircraft, are you telling me that China nor Russia, since they seem to be Your Victims in your little diatribe, are not actively building attack aircraft, so number one show your colors, and lets not pretend to be unbiased in our OPINIONS, we all have one, so the F-35 has been designed to follow the Hi end F-22, which is an airsuperiority fighter, very stealthy with outstanding war fighting capability, and yes I agree that given a choice, I myself would prefer the F-22 have been continued in production and the F-35 cancelled, but thats not the way it worked, and unfortunately the F-35 will have to carry much of the A2A by itself, and quite frankly our partners are purchasing the F-35 as a multi-role Fighter-Bomber, their first concern will be Air Defense, and to be quite frank, the old football phrase..... "the best defense, is a good offense", seems to have worked quite well for us. So lets try to stick to the F-35 and its place in the worlds militaries, I rather doubt you're to worried about the American taxpayer not getting his money's worth?????? by the way, I'm sorry to pull your leg about your screen name, but what does it mean, I guess I should choosen something like Raptor Factor instead of AFB. Have a good day brother, and if you are really interested in keeping the world safe from evil dictators, we are on the same page, and if not, we've got one we'd be happy to send ya. LOL Brat

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

LesAdieux said:

I think you've forgotten american indians! I don't think they want to see europeans on their land!

Click to expand...

Yes, I've got on my big knife, and looking for a new recurve, and a nice pair of deck shoes, or should I say the Cherokee in Me is??? ,, now back to the F-35 my man. Brat

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Marine Corps’ first operational F-35B conducts initial Vertical Landing
By Capt. Staci Reidinger | Headquarters Marine Corps | March 22, 2013

MARINE CORPS AIR STATION YUMA, Ariz. -- Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 watched in amazement and satisfaction as the Corps’ first operational F-35B Lightning II squadron conducted its first Short Take Off, Vertical Landing operations aboard Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Ariz. March 21, 2013.

Maj. Richard Rusnok, an F-35B Lightning II test pilot, conducted VMFA-121’s first short landing and takeoff as well as the Corps’ first F-35B hover and vertical landing outside of a testing environment in BF-19.

VMFA-121 is the first F-35B squadron to join Marine Aircraft Group 13 which is currently composed of four AV-8B Harrier squadrons a Marine wing support squadron and a Marine aviation logistics squadron.

Rusnok was accompanied by VMFA-121's commanding officer, LtCol. Jeffrey Scott, flying a second F-35B as a chase aircraft.

"The first STOVL flight for an F-35B outside of the test environment was another milestone achieved by the Marine Corps and the Green Knights today here at MCAS Yuma," stated Scott. "The F-35 program and specifically the F-35B have made significant progress to make this possible."

As the squadron expands its operations and end strength, they will continue revolutionizing expeditionary Marine air-ground combat power in all threat environments through the use of MCAS Yuma training ranges in Arizona and California. VMFA-121 will be home to approximately 300 Marines and is expected to receive additional F-35s throughout the next 8 to 12 months, with a total of 16 aircraft scheduled to arrive by late 2013.

Differently from previous fixed wing capabilities across the Department of Defense, the integration of U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps and coalition F-35 Lightning II aircraft on a common platform will provide the dominant, multi-role, fifth generation capabilities needed across the full spectrum of combat operations to deter potential adversaries and enable future aviation power projection.

Specific to the Marine Corps, consolidating three aircraft, the AV-8B Harrier, the F/A-18 Hornet and the EA-6B, into one is central to maintaining tactical aviation affordability and serving as good stewards of taxpayer dollars.

VMFA-121 will continue to set the pace for the F-35 program based on a common platform. The U.S. Air Force and Navy can now integrate best practices from VMFA-121 in preparation for the future operational basing of the F-35A and F-35C.

Click to expand...

[video=youtube_share;pteMgYPm1xM]http://youtu.be/pteMgYPm1xM[/video]
One anti 35 vid
[video=youtube_share;20sV9sZ03y8]http://youtu.be/20sV9sZ03y8[/video]
One pro that does not even need too say a word.

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

ahadicow said:

You have talked nothing about using F-35 as a tool in the real defense: the prevention of attack against US soil in tranditional, nuclear or covert military means. You have talked, instead, about F-35's ability to destroy ground targets and STOVL and branches of US military and UK. I am lost as to how any of those topics are linked to the safety of US government or its people.

Click to expand...

Are you serious? I mean, are you kidding me?

Were those same types of activities condcuted by the US fighting in World War II, when the Marines used landing craft, and air support off of carriers to carry the fight to the enemy anywhere in the world done in defense of the American people?

Answer that question regarding World War II and you will answer the same question you pose regarding that type of design today. Here's a hint...the answer is obvious.

You clearly have a political agenda regarding the use of US forces in the world that you are pushing here...again, this thread is not the place to discuss that.

If you want to discuss that type of thing...create a different thread in the members forum...but for the last time, not here.

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

TerraN_EmpirE said:

"Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 watched in amazement and satisfaction as the Corps’ first operational F-35B Lightning II squadron conducted its first Short Take Off, Vertical Landing operations aboard Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Ariz. March 21, 2013.

Maj. Richard Rusnok, an F-35B Lightning II test pilot, conducted VMFA-121’s first short landing and takeoff as well as the Corps’ first F-35B hover and vertical landing outside of a testing environment in BF-19.

VMFA-121 is the first F-35B squadron to join Marine Aircraft Group 13 which is currently composed of four AV-8B Harrier squadrons a Marine wing support squadron and a Marine aviation logistics squadron.

Rusnok was accompanied by VMFA-121's commanding officer, LtCol. Jeffrey Scott, flying a second F-35B as a chase aircraft.

"The first STOVL flight for an F-35B outside of the test environment was another milestone achieved by the Marine Corps and the Green Knights today here at MCAS Yuma," stated Scott. "The F-35 program and specifically the F-35B have made significant progress to make this possible."

[video=youtube_share;20sV9sZ03y8]http://youtu.be/20sV9sZ03y8[/video]

One pro that does not even need too say a word.

Click to expand...

Amen to that TE...that's some good stuff. The project moves on and moves forward.

Glad to see it too. Now conducting F-35B operations completely outside the test envrionment. This has to be pleasing to the UK too, as they are getting their initial aircraft and putting it through their own tests.