F-35 Lightning info

[Clark Griswold]

... It is what it is.

True - this shit is like a horse fly, annoying and it will come back, swat it and move on.

[dvlax40]

People that do these articles and similar stuff, do so because they want to. To some degree and for some reason, however small. It's still their choice ultimately.

It's nothing right or wrong, but lets just not sugar coat that part of it and try to polish it up to somehow they are forced in some way. Because then we are playing PC ourselves if we do that. It is what it is.

Disagree. You have no idea what went into this. Ie "oh you want to fly the f-35? Well you would be the first female. We need you to give a sound byte to the press about it". Could totally see some back room deal with the devil shit there

[Flaco]

Disagree. You have no idea what went into this. Ie "oh you want to fly the f-35? Well you would be the first female. We need you to give a sound byte to the press about it". Could totally see some back room deal with the devil shit there

You make it sound as if the choice between giving the interview and some veiled threat about flying an F-35 is a life and death scenario. She could have stood her ground and said no. Would it have hurt her career? Possibly. Would she have avoided sounding like a total hypocrite? Yes.

Or perhaps careerism has become so rampant that you find it difficult to imagine that someone would take a stand for what they believe in if it had any potential of damaging their career.

Either way, your comments are an indication of the culture that's become prevalent in the Air Force today.

Ultimately, she decided to grant an interview about being the first female to (insert routine activity here).

Twice.

Makes it sort of difficult to take seriously her assertion that gender doesn't matter, doesn't it?

[SnapLock]

I seriously doubt there was any sort of back room deal. She just finished up as a Sq/CC and was given an F-35, which I am guessing she asked for. She is having a good career and probably was more than happy to give the interview. I think many a graduated Sq/CC would have done what she did given the opportunity regardless of gender. Where she went wrong was her comment about the jet not knowing the difference in gender. That right there is where she sh!t the bed, and that is what knocks the women down the ladder among the bros in any squadron. 99 out of 100 dudes that I know don't care if you are male or female. It's about how tactical you are and your abilities in the jet. The AF grandstanding the females like this is what causes the issues.

[Clark Griswold]

Former UK Defense Chief Slams F-35 as ‘White Elephant’

From the article

Yet even U.S. Air Force Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, head of Air Combat Command, recently acknowledged the F-35A will only offer limited close air support when it begins operational flights next year because it will initially lack the large area, high-definition synthetic aperture radar known as “BIG SAR” and a pinpoint glide bomb known as the Small Diameter Bomb II, or SDB-II.

So keep the A-10C until these blocks are fielded.

[Jaded]

Man, what would a fighter do in a CAS wheel without a synthetic aperture radar?

[McDonut]

Man, what would a fighter do in a CAS wheel without a synthetic aperture radar?

Continue to cause resolution advisories for everyone else in the stack. You set yourself up for it and I couldn't help it...

[Danger41]

You make it sound as if the choice between giving the interview and some veiled threat about flying an F-35 is a life and death scenario. She could have stood her ground and said no. Would it have hurt her career? Possibly. Would she have avoided sounding like a total hypocrite? Yes.

Or perhaps careerism has become so rampant that you find it difficult to imagine that someone would take a stand for what they believe in if it had any potential of damaging their career.

Either way, your comments are an indication of the culture that's become prevalent in the Air Force today.

Ultimately, she decided to grant an interview about being the first female to (insert routine activity here).

Twice.

Makes it sort of difficult to take seriously her assertion that gender doesn't matter, doesn't it?

Damn dude, she didn't write Mein Kampf 2 or something.

If my daughter is inspired to do something because of a woman like this, then more power to her.

[Flaco]

Damn dude, she didn't write Mein Kampf 2 or something.

If my daughter is inspired to do something because of a woman like this, then more power to her.

I have both a wife and a daughter whom I love.

For that reason, I would never encourage either of them to serve in a military role where combat is involved.

Women do not possess the same capacity for physical violence as men. How many women have you met that you would fear in battle?

I would not be empowering my daughter by giving her the false belief that she can serve equally with men in combat. I would merely be placing her at a disadvantage to our enemies who don't foolishly rank social progress ahead of military effectiveness.

[SurelySerious]

I have both a wife and a daughter whom I love.

For that reason, I would never encourage either of them to serve in a military role where combat is involved.

Women do not possess the same capacity for physical violence as men. How many women have you met that you would fear in battle?

I would not be empowering my daughter by giving her the false belief that she can serve equally with men in combat. I would merely be placing her at a disadvantage to our enemies who don't foolishly rank social progress ahead of military effectiveness.

[HU&W]

Women do not possess the same capacity for physical violence as men. How many women have you met that you would fear in battle?

Four. Deadliness/effectiveness on the modern battlefield is is much more than the guy with the bigger muscles. It comes down to the personality, skills, and behaviors of the individual. Women are just as capable of individuality as men.

[11F]

I have both a wife and a daughter whom I love.

For that reason, I would never encourage either of them to serve in a military role where combat is involved.

Women do not possess the same capacity for physical violence as men. How many women have you met that you would fear in battle?

I would not be empowering my daughter by giving her the false belief that she can serve equally with men in combat. I would merely be placing her at a disadvantage to our enemies who don't foolishly rank social progress ahead of military effectiveness.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d5/b2/91/d5b291a69b40970569349e09deb631e7.jpg

[Danger41]

If I planned on asking for trial by combat to see if the Gods found me guilty of not paying off my GTC in time, I wouldn't select a woman. But, since we aren't living in the dark ages anymore, women are just as capable of doing a lethal job as their male counterparts (ref: Kim Campbell, Allison Black, Leigh Ann Hester).

I'm going to resist discussing your parenting style about empowerment and false belief.

ANYWAY, how about that F-35, huh?

[FlyinGrunt]

Seriously? Women not capable of physical violence? First of all, my personal experience in coed combatives lead me to believe that women were capable . . . perhaps not physically, but do you know the "killer instinct" look? The look you see in an opponent, knowing that they genuinely desired to cause you harm and pain?

The most intense look in a lifetime of violent sports, barfighting and combatives training that I've ever experienced was . . . a 110 pound woman. I had the physical advantage, but drop a knife in the ring and I had full confidence she would stab me in the eye laughing. Same thing applies to a number of historical examples, mostly in the USSR . . . the Night Witches, female Soviet snipers, etc.

Modern war is about more than the ability to inflict damage with your fists. Perhaps women may not be as well suited as men for, say, SEALs, but that doesn't preclude their ability to kill.

[Clark Griswold]

ANYWAY, how about that F-35, huh?

Amen.

And now for something completely different...

And a concept D model F-35

Could be an EW or Wild Weasel variant. If we're committed to buying the full lot, get a family model.

[FUEL]

I have both a wife and a daughter whom I love.

For that reason, I would never encourage either of them to serve in a military role where combat is involved.

Women do not possess the same capacity for physical violence as men. How many women have you met that you would fear in battle?

I would not be empowering my daughter by giving her the false belief that she can serve equally with men in combat. I would merely be placing her at a disadvantage to our enemies who don't foolishly rank social progress ahead of military effectiveness.

That might be the most ignorant drivel I've come across in a while... and I watch Maddow and read Drudge. It should be possible to code you on your SURF as "DN3W", Does Not Work Well With Women, and therefore limited to jobs that have minimal mission impact.

What I find ironic is that the extremely annoying, over-the-top focus on SARC has actually undermined the integration of women into the military.

Here is the real irony... You complain SARC has undermined women integration (different argument), but are completely blind to you hindering integration on a much larger scale. Honestly, if you had a female wingman or Lt. Col. Mau was lead are you comfortable going to war with them? If not, how does Sq leadership reconcile that? If you're a SQ/CC are you going to send a male to WIC before a female because of their "disadvantage" in combat?

[F16Deuce]

Amen.

And now for something completely different...

And a concept D model F-35

Could be an EW or Wild Weasel variant. If we're committed to buying the full lot, get a family model.

Not needed (2 seats, that is).

[sqwatch]

If we're committed to buying the full lot, get a family model.

No.

[Flaco]

That might be the most ignorant drivel I've come across in a while... and I watch Maddow and read Drudge. It should be possible to code you on your SURF as "DN3W", Does Not Work Well With Women, and therefore limited to jobs that have minimal mission impact.

Ahh, the thought police. Glad to see you're still around.

Here is the real irony... You complain SARC has undermined women integration (different argument), but are completely blind to you hindering integration on a much larger scale. Honestly, if you had a female wingman or Lt. Col. Mau was lead are you comfortable going to war with them? If not, how does Sq leadership reconcile that? If you're a SQ/CC are you going to send a male to WIC before a female because of their "disadvantage" in combat?

I wasn't complaining. I said I found it ironic that those that would like to see women assimilated in every combat role with men are also on the front lines of the SARC war on masculinity which has resulted in division among the sexes.

To answer your question, my comfort level would depend on the situation as well as the individual, whether it was a woman or a man. I've never said that there aren't a handful of women that can meet the standards.

What I'm talking about is policy. I don't think integrating women into frontline combat units will be worth the cost in the long run. But it's unlikely that the full cost will be visible to the American public until there's another no-shit, conventional war - the kind we haven't fought in many years.

People's feelings < military effectiveness.

Edited May 17, 2015 by Flaco

[Clark Griswold]

Not needed (2 seats, that is).

No.

Ok. Not needed for a trainer or operational model? Just approaching it from a multi crew perspective, two seems reasonable for some of the missions it will need to perform, nothing passive-aggressive in that comment.

[Lawman]

Ok. Not needed for a trainer or operational model? Just approaching it from a multi crew perspective, two seems reasonable for some of the missions it will need to perform, nothing passive-aggressive in that comment.

Do we really want to give Lockheed another pass here....

"I've heard this song before... It was playing the last time I got fucked."

[Clark Griswold]

Do we really want to give Lockheed another pass here....

"I've heard this song before... It was playing the last time I got fucked."

Point taken.

[xcraftllc]

lol I would agree that a 2-seater isn't needed. One of the consistent things we've heard from the pilots is that it's a very well-behaved jet and easy to fly. Also, the sensors and avionics seem like they're good enough to keep the workload reasonable for just one pilot (I would imagine anyway). The same can be said for training since much like the F-22 and A-10, as long as the aircraft flies well, you don't need to start in a two seater. I think if we give Lockheed any more money to put toward the cockpit, it should be to find a way to get rid of that damn canopy bow. Or I don't know at least put some mirrors or something on it lol, it's huge!

[Clark Griswold]

lol I would agree that a 2-seater isn't needed. One of the consistent things we've heard from the pilots is that it's a very well-behaved jet and easy to fly. Also, the sensors and avionics seem like they're good enough to keep the workload reasonable for just one pilot (I would imagine anyway). The same can be said for training since much like the F-22 and A-10, as long as the aircraft flies well, you don't need to start in a two seater. I think if we give Lockheed any more money to put toward the cockpit, it should be to find a way to get rid of that damn canopy bow. Or I don't know at least put some mirrors or something on it lol, it's huge!

Don't doubt it is easy to fly but when there's 6 aircraft in the wheel, 4+ radios to manage, sensor re-tasking, a GFC, and an ITC to listen to and updates to be passed, sometimes load shedding occurs. Having a second aviator when it gets really busy works.

A two place 35 could be a good platform for FAC-A or EW. Just a thought. Never gonna happen as that second seat would probably cost 20% + of a single seater and the 35 program needs extra costs like a sub needs screen doors.

Enough with that. Not much of a demo but here's the B making noise and defying gravity at Miramar.

[brabus]

Don't doubt it is easy to fly but when there's 6 aircraft in the wheel, 4+ radios to manage, sensor re-tasking, a GFC, and an ITC to listen to and updates to be passed, sometimes load shedding occurs. Having a second aviator when it gets really busy works.

A two place 35 could be a good platform for FAC-A or EW

Non-starter, what you mentioned is what single seat fighter pilots do every day (and more when we're not talking about low threat CAS, which apparently is the only mission that exists in the AF according to BOPS.net). Mistakes are made, but significantly less than successes. Strikes do it well too, they also fuck it away (just like single seat guys). The point is, at least in the fighter world, there is not a need for a second dude, with the exception of the Strike which was specifically designed for a WSO. We've been single seat weaseling since the 90s and FAC'ing single seat since Vietnam, extremely effectively as well. It's a non-issue in the fighter world - this is not chest beating, it's simply reality. To give the F-35 a 2nd seat would be a huge mistake, waste of money; essentially no gain for a whole shitload of pain.