The F-35 goes FMC this month

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Actually, Mr Obvious, there are many similarities between all 3

Between the B and the A over 70 percent of the components are the same. Between the A and the C almost 90 percent of the parts interchange.

The A has a longer weapons bay since it doesn't require the lift fan of the B or the extra fuel of the C. The C gets longer wings with the landing gear strengthened. All 3 came off the same drawing board. To say that they are completely different AC is just gumming jaws.

So you don't think those changes will have significant disparities in the maintenance requirements?

Do you know anything about aircraft that you are not getting from Google?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Actually, Mr Obvious, there are many similarities between all 3

Between the B and the A over 70 percent of the components are the same. Between the A and the C almost 90 percent of the parts interchange.

The A has a longer weapons bay since it doesn't require the lift fan of the B or the extra fuel of the C. The C gets longer wings with the landing gear strengthened. All 3 came off the same drawing board. To say that they are completely different AC is just gumming jaws.

So you don't think those changes will have significant disparities in the maintenance requirements?

Do you know anything about aircraft that you are not getting from Google?

There you go, trying to talk down again. Will you ever learn? So far, the only thing you have done is show that you aren't very well informed but think you are the cats pajamas.

What I have is 20 years on the Maintenance side in USAF from C-123s to F-15s. And I worked closely with OPS.

Outside of Wing difference on the C, the other 2 use the same wings. Outside of the Landing Gear on the C, the other 2 use the same landing gear. Outside of the extra tank on the C, the A uses that space to make it's weapons bay longer. And then there is the B model Lift Fan. That's about all the difference. They even share the same avionics and coding. They share the same pneudraulics, wiring and almost everything else. There is a bigger difference between the F-15C and the E model.

I supported both C-130s and P-3s in Trans Alert. One has to use a little imagination but if you can support one you can support the other. Of course, you have to look at the P-3 as an upside down C-130 and get the Flight Mech to show you where they hid all the support boxes but they are the same boxes once you find them. You certainly do sell Maintenance short don't you. Most Pilots have a much higher degree of respect for their maintainers than you do. I guess I can't expect any more from a bilge mopper like you.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Actually, Mr Obvious, there are many similarities between all 3

Between the B and the A over 70 percent of the components are the same. Between the A and the C almost 90 percent of the parts interchange.

The A has a longer weapons bay since it doesn't require the lift fan of the B or the extra fuel of the C. The C gets longer wings with the landing gear strengthened. All 3 came off the same drawing board. To say that they are completely different AC is just gumming jaws.

So you don't think those changes will have significant disparities in the maintenance requirements?

Do you know anything about aircraft that you are not getting from Google?

There you go, trying to talk down again. Will you ever learn? So far, the only thing you have done is show that you aren't very well informed but think you are the cats pajamas.

What I have is 20 years on the Maintenance side in USAF from C-123s to F-15s. And I worked closely with OPS.

Outside of Wing difference on the C, the other 2 use the same wings. Outside of the Landing Gear on the C, the other 2 use the same landing gear. Outside of the extra tank on the C, the A uses that space to make it's weapons bay longer. And then there is the B model Lift Fan. That's about all the difference. They even share the same avionics and coding. They share the same pneudraulics, wiring and almost everything else. There is a bigger difference between the F-15C and the E model.

I supported both C-130s and P-3s in Trans Alert. One has to use a little imagination but if you can support one you can support the other. Of course, you have to look at the P-3 as an upside down C-130 and get the Flight Mech to show you where they hid all the support boxes but they are the same boxes once you find them. You certainly do sell Maintenance short don't you. Most Pilots have a much higher degree of respect for their maintainers than you do. I guess I can't expect any more from a bilge mopper like you.

In other words, you are older than shit and completely unfamiliar with these new platforms. Thank you for admitting as much.

Your FMC is just a fantasy. They have the software now to make them FMC, but that is all.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Actually, Mr Obvious, there are many similarities between all 3

Between the B and the A over 70 percent of the components are the same. Between the A and the C almost 90 percent of the parts interchange.

The A has a longer weapons bay since it doesn't require the lift fan of the B or the extra fuel of the C. The C gets longer wings with the landing gear strengthened. All 3 came off the same drawing board. To say that they are completely different AC is just gumming jaws.

So you don't think those changes will have significant disparities in the maintenance requirements?

Do you know anything about aircraft that you are not getting from Google?

There you go, trying to talk down again. Will you ever learn? So far, the only thing you have done is show that you aren't very well informed but think you are the cats pajamas.

What I have is 20 years on the Maintenance side in USAF from C-123s to F-15s. And I worked closely with OPS.

Outside of Wing difference on the C, the other 2 use the same wings. Outside of the Landing Gear on the C, the other 2 use the same landing gear. Outside of the extra tank on the C, the A uses that space to make it's weapons bay longer. And then there is the B model Lift Fan. That's about all the difference. They even share the same avionics and coding. They share the same pneudraulics, wiring and almost everything else. There is a bigger difference between the F-15C and the E model.

I supported both C-130s and P-3s in Trans Alert. One has to use a little imagination but if you can support one you can support the other. Of course, you have to look at the P-3 as an upside down C-130 and get the Flight Mech to show you where they hid all the support boxes but they are the same boxes once you find them. You certainly do sell Maintenance short don't you. Most Pilots have a much higher degree of respect for their maintainers than you do. I guess I can't expect any more from a bilge mopper like you.

In other words, you are older than shit and completely unfamiliar with these new platforms. Thank you for admitting as much.

Your FMC is just a fantasy. They have the software now to make them FMC, but that is all.

Yes, I am older than shit. Most of us are in here. And it's us Old Guys that make things work. I came from a time that you had to support anything they placed in front of you. I remember when they didn't make things easy on Maintenance Guys. I once chased a wire on a C-118 for 60 hours only to find out that it went to absolutely nothing. Someone had cross two wires in the wire bundle and made things work backwards. I tried a hunch and put those wires on backwards and lo and behold, the system worked correctly. It takes more talent to work on the really old stuff than the new stuff. Kid, you have had it too easy.

AS for FMC, they have used a test bird to test it and it passed. The only thing they haven't done is have congress have them test the bird from the ground up. But it's been tested from the ground up a Hill AFB on test birds. There is no reason to suspect the ones in the field will be any different once the 3F software is installed. And they started installing it last month. When they say September, they mean that all of them will be updated by September. That means, in August they started installing the software at Hill AFB to train the pilots and maintainers. As they train them, they are sent out to train the folks in the field. Or they send the folks from the field to Hill AFB to gain the experience and knowledge.

I was once sent on a TDY from Ubon RTAB to Okinawa to gain Depot Level training since they were shutting down the Okinawa Depot for our systems. They could have sent the trainers to us but they sent them to the only other base with that type of AC and we went to the Depot to be trained.

Again, you are still trying to talk down. Give it up. Got a lot of experience over here on new and old systems. Trust me,I would rather support a new system any day. And I would fire your ass the first day.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Actually, Mr Obvious, there are many similarities between all 3

Between the B and the A over 70 percent of the components are the same. Between the A and the C almost 90 percent of the parts interchange.

The A has a longer weapons bay since it doesn't require the lift fan of the B or the extra fuel of the C. The C gets longer wings with the landing gear strengthened. All 3 came off the same drawing board. To say that they are completely different AC is just gumming jaws.

So you don't think those changes will have significant disparities in the maintenance requirements?

Do you know anything about aircraft that you are not getting from Google?

There you go, trying to talk down again. Will you ever learn? So far, the only thing you have done is show that you aren't very well informed but think you are the cats pajamas.

What I have is 20 years on the Maintenance side in USAF from C-123s to F-15s. And I worked closely with OPS.

Outside of Wing difference on the C, the other 2 use the same wings. Outside of the Landing Gear on the C, the other 2 use the same landing gear. Outside of the extra tank on the C, the A uses that space to make it's weapons bay longer. And then there is the B model Lift Fan. That's about all the difference. They even share the same avionics and coding. They share the same pneudraulics, wiring and almost everything else. There is a bigger difference between the F-15C and the E model.

I supported both C-130s and P-3s in Trans Alert. One has to use a little imagination but if you can support one you can support the other. Of course, you have to look at the P-3 as an upside down C-130 and get the Flight Mech to show you where they hid all the support boxes but they are the same boxes once you find them. You certainly do sell Maintenance short don't you. Most Pilots have a much higher degree of respect for their maintainers than you do. I guess I can't expect any more from a bilge mopper like you.

In other words, you are older than shit and completely unfamiliar with these new platforms. Thank you for admitting as much.

Your FMC is just a fantasy. They have the software now to make them FMC, but that is all.

Yes, I am older than shit. Most of us are in here. And it's us Old Guys that make things work. I came from a time that you had to support anything they placed in front of you. I remember when they didn't make things easy on Maintenance Guys. I once chased a wire on a C-118 for 60 hours only to find out that it went to absolutely nothing. Someone had cross two wires in the wire bundle and made things work backwards. I tried a hunch and put those wires on backwards and lo and behold, the system worked correctly. It takes more talent to work on the really old stuff than the new stuff. Kid, you have had it too easy.

AS for FMC, they have used a test bird to test it and it passed. The only thing they haven't done is have congress have them test the bird from the ground up. But it's been tested from the ground up a Hill AFB on test birds. There is no reason to suspect the ones in the field will be any different once the 3F software is installed. And they started installing it last month. When they say September, they mean that all of them will be updated by September. That means, in August they started installing the software at Hill AFB to train the pilots and maintainers. As they train them, they are sent out to train the folks in the field. Or they send the folks from the field to Hill AFB to gain the experience and knowledge.

I was once sent on a TDY from Ubon RTAB to Okinawa to gain Depot Level training since they were shutting down the Okinawa Depot for our systems. They could have sent the trainers to us but they sent them to the only other base with that type of AC and we went to the Depot to be trained.

Again, you are still trying to talk down. Give it up. Got a lot of experience over here on new and old systems. Trust me,I would rather support a new system any day. And I would fire your ass the first day.

The problem is your mouth is writing checks your brain can't cash to use the old stand-by phrase.

The problem is not that you don't understand how to maintain an aircraft. The problem is you apparently don't understand the words you are using.

What are you 110, going on 65? How hard was it to maintain the Wright Flyer?

Best of luck to you! I am outta here! This is getting boring as hell!

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Actually, Mr Obvious, there are many similarities between all 3

Between the B and the A over 70 percent of the components are the same. Between the A and the C almost 90 percent of the parts interchange.

The A has a longer weapons bay since it doesn't require the lift fan of the B or the extra fuel of the C. The C gets longer wings with the landing gear strengthened. All 3 came off the same drawing board. To say that they are completely different AC is just gumming jaws.

So you don't think those changes will have significant disparities in the maintenance requirements?

Do you know anything about aircraft that you are not getting from Google?

There you go, trying to talk down again. Will you ever learn? So far, the only thing you have done is show that you aren't very well informed but think you are the cats pajamas.

What I have is 20 years on the Maintenance side in USAF from C-123s to F-15s. And I worked closely with OPS.

Outside of Wing difference on the C, the other 2 use the same wings. Outside of the Landing Gear on the C, the other 2 use the same landing gear. Outside of the extra tank on the C, the A uses that space to make it's weapons bay longer. And then there is the B model Lift Fan. That's about all the difference. They even share the same avionics and coding. They share the same pneudraulics, wiring and almost everything else. There is a bigger difference between the F-15C and the E model.

I supported both C-130s and P-3s in Trans Alert. One has to use a little imagination but if you can support one you can support the other. Of course, you have to look at the P-3 as an upside down C-130 and get the Flight Mech to show you where they hid all the support boxes but they are the same boxes once you find them. You certainly do sell Maintenance short don't you. Most Pilots have a much higher degree of respect for their maintainers than you do. I guess I can't expect any more from a bilge mopper like you.

In other words, you are older than shit and completely unfamiliar with these new platforms. Thank you for admitting as much.

Your FMC is just a fantasy. They have the software now to make them FMC, but that is all.

Yes, I am older than shit. Most of us are in here. And it's us Old Guys that make things work. I came from a time that you had to support anything they placed in front of you. I remember when they didn't make things easy on Maintenance Guys. I once chased a wire on a C-118 for 60 hours only to find out that it went to absolutely nothing. Someone had cross two wires in the wire bundle and made things work backwards. I tried a hunch and put those wires on backwards and lo and behold, the system worked correctly. It takes more talent to work on the really old stuff than the new stuff. Kid, you have had it too easy.

AS for FMC, they have used a test bird to test it and it passed. The only thing they haven't done is have congress have them test the bird from the ground up. But it's been tested from the ground up a Hill AFB on test birds. There is no reason to suspect the ones in the field will be any different once the 3F software is installed. And they started installing it last month. When they say September, they mean that all of them will be updated by September. That means, in August they started installing the software at Hill AFB to train the pilots and maintainers. As they train them, they are sent out to train the folks in the field. Or they send the folks from the field to Hill AFB to gain the experience and knowledge.

I was once sent on a TDY from Ubon RTAB to Okinawa to gain Depot Level training since they were shutting down the Okinawa Depot for our systems. They could have sent the trainers to us but they sent them to the only other base with that type of AC and we went to the Depot to be trained.

Again, you are still trying to talk down. Give it up. Got a lot of experience over here on new and old systems. Trust me,I would rather support a new system any day. And I would fire your ass the first day.

The problem is your mouth is writing checks your brain can't cash to use the old stand-by phrase.

The problem is not that you don't understand how to maintain an aircraft. The problem is you apparently don't understand the words you are using.

What are you 110, going on 65? How hard was it to maintain the Wright Flyer?

Best of luck to you! I am outta here! This is getting boring as hell!

So far, I have been right on everything I have said. Don't it just chap yer drawers. Of course, I suspect you had a very boring and unimportant life scooping out the bilges on a Destroyer. That's the job they always gave the worst of the crew who were unable to do anything else.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So you don't think those changes will have significant disparities in the maintenance requirements?

Do you know anything about aircraft that you are not getting from Google?

There you go, trying to talk down again. Will you ever learn? So far, the only thing you have done is show that you aren't very well informed but think you are the cats pajamas.

What I have is 20 years on the Maintenance side in USAF from C-123s to F-15s. And I worked closely with OPS.

Outside of Wing difference on the C, the other 2 use the same wings. Outside of the Landing Gear on the C, the other 2 use the same landing gear. Outside of the extra tank on the C, the A uses that space to make it's weapons bay longer. And then there is the B model Lift Fan. That's about all the difference. They even share the same avionics and coding. They share the same pneudraulics, wiring and almost everything else. There is a bigger difference between the F-15C and the E model.

I supported both C-130s and P-3s in Trans Alert. One has to use a little imagination but if you can support one you can support the other. Of course, you have to look at the P-3 as an upside down C-130 and get the Flight Mech to show you where they hid all the support boxes but they are the same boxes once you find them. You certainly do sell Maintenance short don't you. Most Pilots have a much higher degree of respect for their maintainers than you do. I guess I can't expect any more from a bilge mopper like you.

In other words, you are older than shit and completely unfamiliar with these new platforms. Thank you for admitting as much.

Your FMC is just a fantasy. They have the software now to make them FMC, but that is all.

Yes, I am older than shit. Most of us are in here. And it's us Old Guys that make things work. I came from a time that you had to support anything they placed in front of you. I remember when they didn't make things easy on Maintenance Guys. I once chased a wire on a C-118 for 60 hours only to find out that it went to absolutely nothing. Someone had cross two wires in the wire bundle and made things work backwards. I tried a hunch and put those wires on backwards and lo and behold, the system worked correctly. It takes more talent to work on the really old stuff than the new stuff. Kid, you have had it too easy.

AS for FMC, they have used a test bird to test it and it passed. The only thing they haven't done is have congress have them test the bird from the ground up. But it's been tested from the ground up a Hill AFB on test birds. There is no reason to suspect the ones in the field will be any different once the 3F software is installed. And they started installing it last month. When they say September, they mean that all of them will be updated by September. That means, in August they started installing the software at Hill AFB to train the pilots and maintainers. As they train them, they are sent out to train the folks in the field. Or they send the folks from the field to Hill AFB to gain the experience and knowledge.

I was once sent on a TDY from Ubon RTAB to Okinawa to gain Depot Level training since they were shutting down the Okinawa Depot for our systems. They could have sent the trainers to us but they sent them to the only other base with that type of AC and we went to the Depot to be trained.

Again, you are still trying to talk down. Give it up. Got a lot of experience over here on new and old systems. Trust me,I would rather support a new system any day. And I would fire your ass the first day.

The problem is your mouth is writing checks your brain can't cash to use the old stand-by phrase.

The problem is not that you don't understand how to maintain an aircraft. The problem is you apparently don't understand the words you are using.

What are you 110, going on 65? How hard was it to maintain the Wright Flyer?

Best of luck to you! I am outta here! This is getting boring as hell!

So far, I have been right on everything I have said. Don't it just chap yer drawers. Of course, I suspect you had a very boring and unimportant life scooping out the bilges on a Destroyer. That's the job they always gave the worst of the crew who were unable to do anything else.

Never served on a destroyer, but thanks for playing! We have no nice parting gifts for you!

 

[Daryl Hunt]

There you go, trying to talk down again. Will you ever learn? So far, the only thing you have done is show that you aren't very well informed but think you are the cats pajamas.

What I have is 20 years on the Maintenance side in USAF from C-123s to F-15s. And I worked closely with OPS.

Outside of Wing difference on the C, the other 2 use the same wings. Outside of the Landing Gear on the C, the other 2 use the same landing gear. Outside of the extra tank on the C, the A uses that space to make it's weapons bay longer. And then there is the B model Lift Fan. That's about all the difference. They even share the same avionics and coding. They share the same pneudraulics, wiring and almost everything else. There is a bigger difference between the F-15C and the E model.

I supported both C-130s and P-3s in Trans Alert. One has to use a little imagination but if you can support one you can support the other. Of course, you have to look at the P-3 as an upside down C-130 and get the Flight Mech to show you where they hid all the support boxes but they are the same boxes once you find them. You certainly do sell Maintenance short don't you. Most Pilots have a much higher degree of respect for their maintainers than you do. I guess I can't expect any more from a bilge mopper like you.

In other words, you are older than shit and completely unfamiliar with these new platforms. Thank you for admitting as much.

Your FMC is just a fantasy. They have the software now to make them FMC, but that is all.

Yes, I am older than shit. Most of us are in here. And it's us Old Guys that make things work. I came from a time that you had to support anything they placed in front of you. I remember when they didn't make things easy on Maintenance Guys. I once chased a wire on a C-118 for 60 hours only to find out that it went to absolutely nothing. Someone had cross two wires in the wire bundle and made things work backwards. I tried a hunch and put those wires on backwards and lo and behold, the system worked correctly. It takes more talent to work on the really old stuff than the new stuff. Kid, you have had it too easy.

AS for FMC, they have used a test bird to test it and it passed. The only thing they haven't done is have congress have them test the bird from the ground up. But it's been tested from the ground up a Hill AFB on test birds. There is no reason to suspect the ones in the field will be any different once the 3F software is installed. And they started installing it last month. When they say September, they mean that all of them will be updated by September. That means, in August they started installing the software at Hill AFB to train the pilots and maintainers. As they train them, they are sent out to train the folks in the field. Or they send the folks from the field to Hill AFB to gain the experience and knowledge.

I was once sent on a TDY from Ubon RTAB to Okinawa to gain Depot Level training since they were shutting down the Okinawa Depot for our systems. They could have sent the trainers to us but they sent them to the only other base with that type of AC and we went to the Depot to be trained.

Again, you are still trying to talk down. Give it up. Got a lot of experience over here on new and old systems. Trust me,I would rather support a new system any day. And I would fire your ass the first day.

The problem is your mouth is writing checks your brain can't cash to use the old stand-by phrase.

The problem is not that you don't understand how to maintain an aircraft. The problem is you apparently don't understand the words you are using.

What are you 110, going on 65? How hard was it to maintain the Wright Flyer?

Best of luck to you! I am outta here! This is getting boring as hell!

So far, I have been right on everything I have said. Don't it just chap yer drawers. Of course, I suspect you had a very boring and unimportant life scooping out the bilges on a Destroyer. That's the job they always gave the worst of the crew who were unable to do anything else.

Never served on a destroyer, but thanks for playing! We have no nice parting gifts for you!

Never said you actually served. But I just can't imagine you on a Carrier unless you are used to bait the sharks.

 

[DrainBamage]

Carrying external stores defeats the Stealth technology, so why?

There are some missions that require stealth, and others that do not.

For example, look at conflicts in Iraq and Balkans. F-117s were used in some missions because they could deliver ordnance on high value targets that were too well defended for other aircraft. That doesn't mean all those F-16s, A-10s, F-18s, F-15Es, etc. were useless without stealth, it just means there were sorties where the tradeoffs made stealth fighters a better choice. They sure didn't pick the F-117 for payload or SA capabilities.

They can also use F-35s in a combination of configurations, with stealthy fighters up front gathering data while others act as missile or bomb trucks. Same tactic could be used with F-35s and 4th gen aircraft working together, hell USN has proven they can use F-35s along with SM-6s fired from destroyers.

Radars on a Stealth platform are a big sign saying "Here I am!"

Not necessarily. Modern AESA radars (and the AN/APG-81 is the most advanced fighter radar in the world) can spread their emissions over very wide frequencies that can make them very difficult to detect over other electronic noise. Of course this depends on lots of factors but it is entirely possible for an AESA radar to detect other aircraft without it's own emissions being noticed, especially at greater range.

Make a corridor? I'm sorry! There are not enough F-35s available to do the job.

Sure there are. US aircraft have made corridors with strike packages of legacy aircraft, it is often a matter of taking down a handful of IADS elements to create a safer path to target. I have no idea why you think something that has been done countless times is now impossible with an aircraft that is stealthy, has built-it EW capabilities an order of magnitude more sophisticated and powerful, and greater sensory awareness for dynamic suppression than previous 4th gen aircraft that could do same job.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Carrying external stores defeats the Stealth technology, so why?

There are some missions that require stealth, and others that do not.

For example, look at conflicts in Iraq and Balkans. F-117s were used in some missions because they could deliver ordnance on high value targets that were too well defended for other aircraft. That doesn't mean all those F-16s, A-10s, F-18s, F-15Es, etc. were useless without stealth, it just means there were sorties where the tradeoffs made stealth fighters a better choice. They sure didn't pick the F-117 for payload or SA capabilities.

They can also use F-35s in a combination of configurations, with stealthy fighters up front gathering data while others act as missile or bomb trucks. Same tactic could be used with F-35s and 4th gen aircraft working together, hell USN has proven they can use F-35s along with SM-6s fired from destroyers.

Radars on a Stealth platform are a big sign saying "Here I am!"

Not necessarily. Modern AESA radars (and the AN/APG-81 is the most advanced fighter radar in the world) can spread their emissions over very wide frequencies that can make them very difficult to detect over other electronic noise. Of course this depends on lots of factors but it is entirely possible for an AESA radar to detect other aircraft without it's own emissions being noticed, especially at greater range.

Make a corridor? I'm sorry! There are not enough F-35s available to do the job.

Sure there are. US aircraft have made corridors with strike packages of legacy aircraft, it is often a matter of taking down a handful of IADS elements to create a safer path to target. I have no idea why you think something that has been done countless times is now impossible with an aircraft that is stealthy, has built-it EW capabilities an order of magnitude more sophisticated and powerful, and greater sensory awareness for dynamic suppression than previous 4th gen aircraft that could do same job.

You didn't address a key problem, How many operational F-35s do you think we have in Korea?

You can't fight with something you do not have.

 

[DrainBamage]

I thought we were talking about the capabilities of the aircraft in a general sense, not what it can do at this exact second via operational aircraft.

USMC has operational F-35Bs in Japan and they have proven in exercises they are capable of efficiently crippling advanced air defense systems, so that is the answer. However even with 3F software upgrade to full warfighting capability I doubt they'd be used in Korea immediately, such is the nature of new aircraft. With 3F USMC F-35Bs will be able to employ GBU-12/32/49/51 both internally and externally and AIM-9X. They will continue training with them and their new capabilities, and might use them if North Korea actually invaded South Korea, otherwise any strike against North Korea would involve existing 4th gen aircraft, B-2s, and F-22s.

If I had to guess who will use F-35s in combat first look no further than Israel. They already have seven, will be getting two more before end of this year, and will likely declare IOC shortly thereafter. Plus the Israelis don't give a shit.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I thought we were talking about the capabilities of the aircraft in a general sense, not what it can do at this exact second via operational aircraft.

USMC has operational F-35Bs in Japan and they have proven in exercises they are capable of efficiently crippling advanced air defense systems, so that is the answer. However even with 3F software upgrade to full warfighting capability I doubt they'd be used in Korea immediately, such is the nature of new aircraft. With 3F USMC F-35Bs will be able to employ GBU-12/32/49/51 both internally and externally and AIM-9X. They will continue training with them and their new capabilities, and might use them if North Korea actually invaded South Korea, otherwise any strike against North Korea would involve existing 4th gen aircraft, B-2s, and F-22s.

If I had to guess who will use F-35s in combat first look no further than Israel. They already have seven, will be getting two more before end of this year, and will likely declare IOC shortly thereafter. Plus the Israelis don't give a shit.

Wow! 16 aircraft! Be still my beating heart!

 

[DrainBamage]

I guess I'm not seeing your point. It seemed that you were objecting to the notion that F-35s could be used in strike roles with current capabilities, then it evolved to questioning how many there were, and now you've zeroed in on whether 16 of them is enough to accomplish anything. So you're questioning the usefulness of the aircraft based on the exact number available this second and under some bizarre scenario where no other aircraft could participate in a strike package.

I'm also still not sure why you think having the ability to switch between stealthy with internal carriage for high risk strike (a la F-117) or having more stores externally like every other aircraft US military uses makes that stealth ability pointless.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I guess I'm not seeing your point. It seemed that you were objecting to the notion that F-35s could be used in strike roles with current capabilities, then it evolved to questioning how many there were, and now you've zeroed in on whether 16 of them is enough to accomplish anything. So you're questioning the usefulness of the aircraft based on the exact number available this second and under some bizarre scenario where no other aircraft could participate in a strike package.

I'm also still not sure why you think having the ability to switch between stealthy with internal carriage for high risk strike (a la F-117) or having more stores externally like every other aircraft US military uses makes that stealth ability pointless.

Somtimes he actually has a message. Not this time. He goes from discussing to trolling. Now he's trying to find a weakness in your argument, not being constructive in any way. He's lost all arguments and trolling is all that is left.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I guess I'm not seeing your point. It seemed that you were objecting to the notion that F-35s could be used in strike roles with current capabilities, then it evolved to questioning how many there were, and now you've zeroed in on whether 16 of them is enough to accomplish anything. So you're questioning the usefulness of the aircraft based on the exact number available this second and under some bizarre scenario where no other aircraft could participate in a strike package.

I'm also still not sure why you think having the ability to switch between stealthy with internal carriage for high risk strike (a la F-117) or having more stores externally like every other aircraft US military uses makes that stealth ability pointless.

You and others on here need to get an F-35 and get a room. It's probably a very good aircraft, but is a money sponge and it has failed on numerous occasions to live up to its billing.

I am addressing the here and now, because we need this aircraft here and now, not 5 years from now.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I guess I'm not seeing your point. It seemed that you were objecting to the notion that F-35s could be used in strike roles with current capabilities, then it evolved to questioning how many there were, and now you've zeroed in on whether 16 of them is enough to accomplish anything. So you're questioning the usefulness of the aircraft based on the exact number available this second and under some bizarre scenario where no other aircraft could participate in a strike package.

I'm also still not sure why you think having the ability to switch between stealthy with internal carriage for high risk strike (a la F-117) or having more stores externally like every other aircraft US military uses makes that stealth ability pointless.

You and others on here need to get an F-35 and get a room. It's probably a very good aircraft, but is a money sponge and it has failed on numerous occasions to live up to its billing.

I am addressing the here and now, because we need this aircraft here and now, not 5 years from now.

The F-35 is already here and in service. I really don't exactly know where you are but it has little to do with reality.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I guess I'm not seeing your point. It seemed that you were objecting to the notion that F-35s could be used in strike roles with current capabilities, then it evolved to questioning how many there were, and now you've zeroed in on whether 16 of them is enough to accomplish anything. So you're questioning the usefulness of the aircraft based on the exact number available this second and under some bizarre scenario where no other aircraft could participate in a strike package.

I'm also still not sure why you think having the ability to switch between stealthy with internal carriage for high risk strike (a la F-117) or having more stores externally like every other aircraft US military uses makes that stealth ability pointless.

You and others on here need to get an F-35 and get a room. It's probably a very good aircraft, but is a money sponge and it has failed on numerous occasions to live up to its billing.

I am addressing the here and now, because we need this aircraft here and now, not 5 years from now.

The F-35 is already here and in service. I really don't exactly know where you are but it has little to do with reality.

Yes, it is here and in small numbers and still has many problems. Why can't you admit that?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I guess I'm not seeing your point. It seemed that you were objecting to the notion that F-35s could be used in strike roles with current capabilities, then it evolved to questioning how many there were, and now you've zeroed in on whether 16 of them is enough to accomplish anything. So you're questioning the usefulness of the aircraft based on the exact number available this second and under some bizarre scenario where no other aircraft could participate in a strike package.

I'm also still not sure why you think having the ability to switch between stealthy with internal carriage for high risk strike (a la F-117) or having more stores externally like every other aircraft US military uses makes that stealth ability pointless.

You and others on here need to get an F-35 and get a room. It's probably a very good aircraft, but is a money sponge and it has failed on numerous occasions to live up to its billing.

I am addressing the here and now, because we need this aircraft here and now, not 5 years from now.

The F-35 is already here and in service. I really don't exactly know where you are but it has little to do with reality.

Yes, it is here and in small numbers and still has many problems. Why can't you admit that?

You keep hammering at it. Now, exactly what does anyone else have that can defeat it other than the F-22 that has shared much of the technology that the F-35 program has generated.

Let me guess, the SU-35, right? There are fewer SU-35s than F-35s and there will be even fewer made than the F-35 numbers right now. Between the Marines and USAF, there are about 150 delivered F-35s and more on the way. Russia is having a hard time selling their SU-35 since it flies around with a huge kick me sign on it's butt. Using a scale of 1, 1 being completely unstealthy, the SU-35 has a stealth value of .5 while even the F-15E in air to air mode has one of .25. This means that the Russian planes even fly with a huge kick me sign when the F-15 C-E is in the area.

How about the vaunted SU-57. You can make it look like a stealth fighter but is it really? It ends up having the worse stealth values as the F-117 which had a stealth value of about .03. It can't super cruise until at least 2025. It has too small a weapons bay for the weapons it has to carry to stay relevant. A stealth value of .17 sounds good but the F-35 is somewhere in the .0000X area of stealth.

Then you are going to say that the F-35 can be detected by Russian ground radar. Sure it can. Low Frequency at about 35 miles. Even then, the radar says that there is something somewhere over there. It can't pinpoint exactly where and can't target it. By turning your buddies radar on, you get a guided bomb dropped on you at 45 miles.

And this is with the 3I mods that ALL F-35s have installed and that works well.

In conclusion. There are more F-35s in service than there ever will be SU-35s and SU-57s and more F-35s are on the way at about 1 every 3 days. The F-35 is the second best Air to Air Fighter in the world and will stay that way for years to come. And it won't be flying alone. You try and find it with a serious fighter sweep and it will tell it's big brother which is the BEST Air to Air Fighter in the world and will be for at least a decade. The only thing 3rd place gets you is dead. Yes, you can bag the F-35 pretty easy. Just shotgun 45 ground to air sams at it and hope for the best. You are hoping that you can penetrate it's bag of tricks (probably not) and get a lucky heat trail at the very end of the SAMS flight. Can the F-35 be shot down? Of course but it's going to take every resource you have to do it. Meanwhile, you are losing your assets at an alarming rate to do it. Being 2nd best ain't so bad. Being 3rd best means dead.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I guess I'm not seeing your point. It seemed that you were objecting to the notion that F-35s could be used in strike roles with current capabilities, then it evolved to questioning how many there were, and now you've zeroed in on whether 16 of them is enough to accomplish anything. So you're questioning the usefulness of the aircraft based on the exact number available this second and under some bizarre scenario where no other aircraft could participate in a strike package.

I'm also still not sure why you think having the ability to switch between stealthy with internal carriage for high risk strike (a la F-117) or having more stores externally like every other aircraft US military uses makes that stealth ability pointless.

You and others on here need to get an F-35 and get a room. It's probably a very good aircraft, but is a money sponge and it has failed on numerous occasions to live up to its billing.

I am addressing the here and now, because we need this aircraft here and now, not 5 years from now.

The F-35 is already here and in service. I really don't exactly know where you are but it has little to do with reality.

Yes, it is here and in small numbers and still has many problems. Why can't you admit that?

You keep hammering at it. Now, exactly what does anyone else have that can defeat it other than the F-22 that has shared much of the technology that the F-35 program has generated.

Let me guess, the SU-35, right? There are fewer SU-35s than F-35s and there will be even fewer made than the F-35 numbers right now. Between the Marines and USAF, there are about 150 delivered F-35s and more on the way. Russia is having a hard time selling their SU-35 since it flies around with a huge kick me sign on it's butt. Using a scale of 1, 1 being completely unstealthy, the SU-35 has a stealth value of .5 while even the F-15E in air to air mode has one of .25. This means that the Russian planes even fly with a huge kick me sign when the F-15 C-E is in the area.

How about the vaunted SU-57. You can make it look like a stealth fighter but is it really? It ends up having the worse stealth values as the F-117 which had a stealth value of about .03. It can't super cruise until at least 2025. It has too small a weapons bay for the weapons it has to carry to stay relevant. A stealth value of .17 sounds good but the F-35 is somewhere in the .0000X area of stealth.

Then you are going to say that the F-35 can be detected by Russian ground radar. Sure it can. Low Frequency at about 35 miles. Even then, the radar says that there is something somewhere over there. It can't pinpoint exactly where and can't target it. By turning your buddies radar on, you get a guided bomb dropped on you at 45 miles.

And this is with the 3I mods that ALL F-35s have installed and that works well.

In conclusion. There are more F-35s in service than there ever will be SU-35s and SU-57s and more F-35s are on the way at about 1 every 3 days. The F-35 is the second best Air to Air Fighter in the world and will stay that way for years to come. And it won't be flying alone. You try and find it with a serious fighter sweep and it will tell it's big brother which is the BEST Air to Air Fighter in the world and will be for at least a decade. The only thing 3rd place gets you is dead. Yes, you can bag the F-35 pretty easy. Just shotgun 45 ground to air sams at it and hope for the best. You are hoping that you can penetrate it's bag of tricks (probably not) and get a lucky heat trail at the very end of the SAMS flight. Can the F-35 be shot down? Of course but it's going to take every resource you have to do it. Meanwhile, you are losing your assets at an alarming rate to do it. Being 2nd best ain't so bad. Being 3rd best means dead.

Like I said, you and your F-35 need to get a room!

I have never seen this much adulation heaped on an aircraft that has yet to be proven.

My nephew is a Marine F-35B avionics tech. He worked on AV-8s before. When he gives me the thumbs up, I'll let you know.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I guess I'm not seeing your point. It seemed that you were objecting to the notion that F-35s could be used in strike roles with current capabilities, then it evolved to questioning how many there were, and now you've zeroed in on whether 16 of them is enough to accomplish anything. So you're questioning the usefulness of the aircraft based on the exact number available this second and under some bizarre scenario where no other aircraft could participate in a strike package.

I'm also still not sure why you think having the ability to switch between stealthy with internal carriage for high risk strike (a la F-117) or having more stores externally like every other aircraft US military uses makes that stealth ability pointless.

You and others on here need to get an F-35 and get a room. It's probably a very good aircraft, but is a money sponge and it has failed on numerous occasions to live up to its billing.

I am addressing the here and now, because we need this aircraft here and now, not 5 years from now.

The F-35 is already here and in service. I really don't exactly know where you are but it has little to do with reality.

Yes, it is here and in small numbers and still has many problems. Why can't you admit that?

You keep hammering at it. Now, exactly what does anyone else have that can defeat it other than the F-22 that has shared much of the technology that the F-35 program has generated.

Let me guess, the SU-35, right? There are fewer SU-35s than F-35s and there will be even fewer made than the F-35 numbers right now. Between the Marines and USAF, there are about 150 delivered F-35s and more on the way. Russia is having a hard time selling their SU-35 since it flies around with a huge kick me sign on it's butt. Using a scale of 1, 1 being completely unstealthy, the SU-35 has a stealth value of .5 while even the F-15E in air to air mode has one of .25. This means that the Russian planes even fly with a huge kick me sign when the F-15 C-E is in the area.

How about the vaunted SU-57. You can make it look like a stealth fighter but is it really? It ends up having the worse stealth values as the F-117 which had a stealth value of about .03. It can't super cruise until at least 2025. It has too small a weapons bay for the weapons it has to carry to stay relevant. A stealth value of .17 sounds good but the F-35 is somewhere in the .0000X area of stealth.

Then you are going to say that the F-35 can be detected by Russian ground radar. Sure it can. Low Frequency at about 35 miles. Even then, the radar says that there is something somewhere over there. It can't pinpoint exactly where and can't target it. By turning your buddies radar on, you get a guided bomb dropped on you at 45 miles.

And this is with the 3I mods that ALL F-35s have installed and that works well.

In conclusion. There are more F-35s in service than there ever will be SU-35s and SU-57s and more F-35s are on the way at about 1 every 3 days. The F-35 is the second best Air to Air Fighter in the world and will stay that way for years to come. And it won't be flying alone. You try and find it with a serious fighter sweep and it will tell it's big brother which is the BEST Air to Air Fighter in the world and will be for at least a decade. The only thing 3rd place gets you is dead. Yes, you can bag the F-35 pretty easy. Just shotgun 45 ground to air sams at it and hope for the best. You are hoping that you can penetrate it's bag of tricks (probably not) and get a lucky heat trail at the very end of the SAMS flight. Can the F-35 be shot down? Of course but it's going to take every resource you have to do it. Meanwhile, you are losing your assets at an alarming rate to do it. Being 2nd best ain't so bad. Being 3rd best means dead.

Like I said, you and your F-35 need to get a room!

I have never seen this much adulation heaped on an aircraft that has yet to be proven.

My nephew is a Marine F-35B avionics tech. He worked on AV-8s before. When he gives me the thumbs up, I'll let you know.

There is NO perfect anything. Unless it's designed, built and flown by Jesus.

The operating costs of the F-35 is nearing that of the F-16.

The numbers are high enough to really worry the guys in the black hats

NO Fighter or Bomber or even Toaster will stop being "Fixed" as times go by in order to stay the best of the best.

Not being the best is not an option. Being number 2 ain't so bad as long as you also have the number one. Being number 3 just gets you dead.

First of all, your Nephew might be what you say but he can't tell you anything since that is a closely guarded bit of information. I worked in an Avionics Squadron for the new F-15. No one talked, period, about it. WE had the most expensive fighter ever made at the time and knew it. We didn't brag because that would possibly passing on information that we shouldn't. Much of the same things were said about the F-15A that is being said about the F-35 and look where that lead. Even today, the only thing that can beat a F-15 in the air is the F-22 and F-35. But your commie buddies would actually have a chance against the F-15.

No, it ain't perfect. But it's good enough.