Bullet

Didn't you know? There is only one black tanker, and Chuck Norris is the only black tanker boomer. You don't tell Chuck Norris your tail number, he tells you whatever number he feels like your jet should be. When you land, the jet is immediately sent to the paint shop so your new tail number is what Chuck says it should be. And there is no such thing as tanker or fighter rejoin. He's EVERYWHERE, when he wants to be, where he wants to be, and pre-contact on YOU whenever he damn feels like you need more gas. Don't get me started on EMCON. You don't talk to Chuck. EVER.

If a female Sasquatch looked like that, I'd hit it.

"In related news on Seymour Johnson AFB, the members of the 4FW CGOC conducted their own "Elephant Walk and Turkey Shoot" as all five of them marched on over to the Base Bowling Alley to share comraderie, Turkey Club sandwiches, and an informative leadership lecture on MyDP. "It was a real team-building experience for everyone involved in the CGOC Turkey Shoot" quoted 1 Lt James "Jim" McShoe, the council VP. "And we only had to shut down 4 support offices to make it happen! The flyers were all flying anyway, so they didn't need to fill a voucher or anything."

The worst part is this "tool" actually thnks this is a valuable lesson about "leadership". I think I just threw up in my mouth a little...

Still, it would have been awesome if Chuck finished his side of the phone conversation with "Remember how you used your protected celebrity status so you always got special treatment above guys more deserving and capable in the job? Well, payback is a McChing!" See what I did there? Cleverly replacing "bitch" with "McChing"? Damn, I'm funny....

Thanks, and much appreciated. Kept my reply simple for the simple reason that I wasn't sure where you were taking this, and I was hesitant to get it a flame war I felt wasn't worth it. Trust me, as someone working the AF oversight of this boon-doogle, and as a Taxpayer myself, there are times where my cranium feels like exploding as well over the latest WTF moment that is this program's tendency. My intent was to simply respond to FallinOsh's question: "Are its' capabilities worth the cost?" I get it that those are HUGE costs we're talking about, but I KNOW that we need what it brings to the fight -- there is no simply no other answer that meets ALL the requirements as well. We're working to figure it out, and it's something that keeps me awake at night, because I know that someday one of my former bro's, or even one of the young-uns here on this forum, will be putting his pink butt on the line in one of these, trusting we did get it right. THAT keeps me motivated to get it right.

Copy.

Whole post, or just the last sentence?

As someone heavily involved in this program (and actually fits the criteria Danny Noonin asked, and beyond), let me provide my $0.02. Take it for what it is worth... Will the F-35 become the awesome combat aircraft that is promised in Lockheed's "glossy brochure"? Well, if it delivers with all the promised capabilities, quite frankly the answer is a unequivical "Yes". But (as has been rightly pointed out, multiple times) that is a really, really, REALLY big "if". The development of this aircraft has had tremendous growing pains, for mulitple reasons, and to talk about the problems it has faced and still will face would probably get us 1) to classification levels we ain't gonna touch here, and 2) to get a message that states: "you have reached the end of the internet". Will the F-35 be the end-all-to-be-all when complete and operational? Frankly, no. It does some of the missions it is designed for SUPERBLY, and someof the missions we will ask it to do (like CAS) "adequately". All part of the decison process of folks from MANY years ago, with numerous factors like cost to build multiple fleets of different, specialized aircraft addressed. A compromise in its design in order to satisy mulitple customers. Will it be better than the A-10 at CAS? Mostly no, but it depends on the scenario. Is the decision to make it our ultimate replacement for the F-16 AND the A-10 debatable? Certainly, and I've been a part of it, here and in other places that actually have some decision making authority on the program. And you want my honest opinion (Again, take it or leave it, I really don't care)? The assessment of some here that it will eventually deliver, perhaps with only most of the "toys and wish-list items" because it is too-big-to-fail so LM will get it it mostly right, is pretty accurate. I would add the factor of "because we put all our eggs in one basket for now, and we now have no other choice" as another major reason. Also a cause for debate? Yes again. Are there better options? Yep. Is cancelling the program one of those options? Nope. So, why don't we see the reasons it is so important that are based on the plane's capabilities being used here as part of the debate? Well, a LOT of that story is beyond the classification level of this site and the "bar talk" discussions. Just ask yourself, without being cynical about it, why those who do have that insight fight so hard for the program. There ARE foolish decisions and some really buffonish activities going on, but someone way above our paygrades, with a little more insight into the whole picture, thinks it's still worth it. And yes, the Shaitsu massage chair is very nice.

So, I just gotta ask: how do you say "Breaking shit and killing people" in Latin?. It may not pass the "Everyone's a winner and no body should get their feelings hurt" mentality we've unfortunately have been forced to live by for a few years now, but it sure as shit would become my new signature block.

"Well, at least we're not the Army."

You obvioulsy have some information to pass about the travesty of justice our Government has being involved in, USAFPilot. But I think most of us need some handy way for you to present your information more clearly. Might I recommend you make a .ppt presentation? Just be sure to include the double-panther and Bill of Rights / Rattlesnake graphics so you can ensure you really get your points across in a fashion that shows us all just how important this information is, OK? Oh, and don't forget the 3 Wolves Howling on your BLUF slide.... Oh x 2, and boobies. Gotta have boobies somewhere or us degenerate morons will quickly be bored

While I do believe that the inclusion of the double-panther, Swat team in action animation, and Bill of Rights / Rattlesnake combo makes this .ppt presentation AWESOME worthy, our Lt missed the mark for EPIC status by forgetting to include the "Mountain with 3 Wolves Howling" graphic... http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/B002HJ377A I'm worried her strat on her next PR will reflect this ommision

I couldn't care less about her lack of grammar skills. The fact that she uses TWO panthers and a SWAT team animation rates this as "AWESOME" in my ranking of .ppt presentations. I've already requested my local comm squadron enforce the inclusion of panthers on all future CBT presentations at my location...

Nah, I just do the "finger-thingee" first before I type them. Shit, did it again....

Simple enough. Go because the leadership expects you to, demonstrating you're a "team player". But turn your back to them. You, and as many others you can get to do it with you. Don't talk or ignore them, or anything else that leadership can claim was "disruptive" to others. Just turn your back to them. Show leadership you really don't like having to put up with this shit, or having to go to this crappy kind of concert. You'll be there because it's a "team" thing, but you just don't like this particular waste of tax payer dollars. I'd do the same if Nickleback showed up downrange as well... Oh, and I've discovered that I really like to use"quotation marks"...

Well, I'm saying this one person is wrong, in just about every one of his facts and assumptions. Nice try, though...

UFB Hard to see the failure coming from YOU and your policy of "we're gonna be a place where we randomly try to humiliate you over something not focused on the mission, and hammer you if you get it wrong" Chief Xxxxxxx, when you're too busy focusing on looking for the failure in everyone else. Wanna see failure while your there, Chief Xxxxxx? Pretty simple. Head on over to the bathroom sink and look directly above it. Tell me what you see. Have you found the failure yet?

Possibly. More disturbing is that he now has the ability to say this: "Yeah, the Army was about to boot my ass out until Patti LaBelle's hairdresser beat me up"

I recommend you Google "SWAT" and "JSF" and get back to me on this one. Cost overruns that came about because the program stopped for two years to redesign the aircraft due to weight, and spent two more years getting sub=contractors to re-supply newly designed parts. This also led to very late delivery of the flight test articles making the development schedule unachievable. My point exactly. Can we afford adding risk to the program just so the Marines can land on a LHD? Seriously? You are backing your argument with "Congress got it right"? Really? And I never said we should look into taking away the Marine fast air. But we should seriously ask if the Marines need a STOVL JSF. Sure they did. Did the Marines or Army move into a FOB before Air Supremacy was established over the battlespace they occupied? THAT is the real question. Certainly. But will we establish a forward location where TAC Sams are still a threat in the pattern? And you must obviously think we can afford to let the STOVL variant continue to drive additional risk for the other two variants, putting the whole program at risk. ClearedHot, feel free to PM me and we can discuss my exact level of ignorance with the history and current status of the program.

Ultimately, I think you missed my point: the decision to add a STOVL variant of the F-35 caused a 5 year delay in the program and over $!0B in extra cost. The bad publicity this caused has nearly put the F-35 on the chopping block; all because the Navy's Army's Air Force wants the ability to have it's own Navy. Do we really want to add the expense of STOVL when they just as easily could be using carriers? And which do you think the Navy would rather reduce capacity in: carriers or LHDs? We could just as easily make LHDs a helicopter-only platform, with all fastmover capability shifting to the carriers, thus removing the need for VL on the JSF. Designing and producing a fighter with stealth capability is a VERY expensive proposition. Maintaining that LO capability is even more so (just ask a -22 maintenance officer). You pay for this expense because you need to operate in an environment where you wouldn't survive without it. The MEZs mentioned of OIF and Libya were NOT these types of environments. We won't make a FOB next to the MEZs where you need stealth, and the Navy doesn't park it's multi-billion dollar carriers anywhere NEAR these environments. So, why did the Marines decide to purchase an LO aircraft? Simple answer, it was their only option. What they really wanted was a replacement for their Harriers, which were quickly dieing out and getting too expensive to keep flying. A fast mover CAS aircraft that can deploy either near the front, or from the LDHD. But the Navy wasn't about to buy both the JSF for themselves AND a new Marine fast mover (even Super Hornets). The design expense of two aircraft was unaffordable. The only option left was for the Marines to buy JSFs (which were advertised as being as cheap as a new VL aircraft, some prediction THAT turned out to be!), and to get the Marines to join (and reduce cost through larger aircraft buys), they were promised a STOVL variant. BL: The Marines DON'T need LO; they won't do their primary mission of CAS in an environment that requires it. They DO need STOVL. By forcing the program to design a STOVL variant of a new LO aircraft, it added significant risk to the program. Something that has come back to haunt both the AF and Marine variants. Will the Marines operate near the front lines, and do they need STOVL to do this effectively? The answers to both of these questions is a definitive YES. Are these front lines anywhere near an environment that requires LO capability? A definitive NO. And the second one should be there this week as well.

Wrong forum with the wrong security level to address your first point. Your second point? Spot on! Sort of like starting a land war in Asia...

And they just as easily could have taken off of a Nimitz Class carrier. Neither of which (the Nimitz class, or the Kearsarge) would be parked in an area where their T/O and landing pattern would be in the range of an advanced IADS. The program should simply cancel the STOVL variant, and have the Marines buy carrier variants. THAT is the best way to fix the program, remove the most risky variant from the equation.

Certainly fast movers played their part in these efforts. But they didn't take-off and land from a austere location only a few miles away (which is a USMC requirement for the -35). The question remains, does the Corps need an LO fast jet that can do CAS AND vertical land? The only reasons they need to have the vertical land capability is either for austere forward locations, or to operate off of their mini-carriers. So, you got to ask will we EVER put a FOB in the range of an advanced IADs (which is the reason for LO)? Highly unlikely. So, it came down to: we have these mini-carriers, so we HAVE to make our fast movers be able to use them. A poor reason to add so much risk and cost to the program, and it has come to bite the program in the ass. At least twice, with the potential for even more issues.