Support NeoGAF

[Joezie]

http://www.acc.af.mil/News/ArticleD...ir-force-declares-the-f-35a-combat-ready.aspx

Obligatory PR speak aside in the article.

JOINT BASE LANGLEY-EUSTIS, Va. --

The F-35A Lightning II fifth generation fighter aircraft was declared ‘combat ready’ today by Gen. Hawk Carlisle, the commander of Air Combat Command.

Carlisle lauded the aircraft’s performance, noting that the aircraft had met all key criteria for reaching initial operational capability.

Airmen trained, manned and equipped to conduct basic close air support, interdiction, and limited suppression/destruction of enemy air defenses in a contested environment with an operational squadron of 12-24 aircraft, the ability to deploy and conduct operational missions using program of record weapons and missions systems and having all necessary logistics and operational elements in place.

The 34th Fighter Squadron of the 388th Fighter Wing, based at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, is the service’s first operational F-35A squadron, having met all the established criteria for Initial Operational Capability including a successful June deployment to Mountain Home AFB, Idaho and a series of eight-aircraft sorties held in mid-July. 34th FS Airmen will fly and maintain the F-35A alongside Air Force Reservists from Hill’s 419th Fighter Wing.

Those sentiments were echoed by Col. David Smith, 419 FW commander. “It's an honor to fly and maintain the F-35 with our active duty counterparts here at Hill,” Smith said. “Our units were the first to fly combat-ready F-16s nearly 40 years ago and we're very proud to have made history once again in bringing the Air Force's newest fighter jet to IOC.”

Also of note, it's first live air to air kill was recorded recently

EDIT(because I fucked up title): IOC = Initial Operating Capability

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

Sweet! Let's see if it was worth all that money. Though ideally it will never be needed, of course.

 

[Lazy vs Crazy]

What does IOC mean?

 

[Straight Edge]

General Hawk. Go Joe!

 

[linkboy]

What does IOC mean?

Initial Operating Capacity

 

[ColdPizza]

What does IOC mean?

Initial Operational Capability

It's in the OP

 

[n0razi]

Gen. Hawk Carlisle... thats a badass name for an Air Force general lol

 

[BigJonsson]

The US is giving the IOC F-35's?

Spoiler

I make joke

 

[randome]

What does IOC mean?

International Olympic committee.

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

I thought they were grounded because some of the instrument panels stopped working.

I could be wrong though, I was somewhat drunk when I was having a conversation with the person that knew this stuff.

 

[Jezbollah]

I thought they were grounded because some of the instrument panels stopped working.

I could be wrong though, I was somewhat drunk when I was having a conversation with the person that knew this stuff.

Nope (well certainly not right now). here was one doing it's thing at Farnbrough a few weeks back

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaSHXR9FPjs

 

[strafer]

these were suppose to replace the A-10s right?

 

[Orbis]

International Olympic committee.

About time we had aerial dogfights at the Olympics.

 

[luckygodzilla]

these were suppose to replace the A-10s right?

For the air force the F-35A is slated to replace the F-16, A-10 (though Congress threw a hissy fit over that one), while the Marines and navy are replacing the legacy hornet and harrier with the F-35B and C

 

[Geist-]

About time we had aerial dogfights at the Olympics.

Damn, now I want arial dogfights to really be a part of the Olympics.

 

[SDCowboy]

Damn they look sweet.

 

[Stinkles]

U.S. Air Force test pilot, Maj. Raven LeClair,

If you wrote that name and title in a script Aaron Sorkin would yell at you.

 

[jombag]

For the air force the F-35A is slated to replace the F-16, A-10 (though Congress threw a hissy fit over that one), while the Marines and navy are replacing the legacy hornet and harrier with the F-35B and C

Whaaat?? No more F16s?

 

[luckygodzilla]

Whaaat?? No more F16s?

Yep, it's easy to forget but the design for the falcon is well over 40 years old, about time for an upgrade if you ask me.

 

[Forerunner]

A-10s are supposedly getting extended until 2028. Which is good, you can't replace the fucking GOAT.

 

[NervousXtian]

Good to hear, the whole development has been an absolute clusterfuck.

It's pretty sad how messed up we are in weapon development as of late, you'd think with all the constant war we'd be better at this by now.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Initial Operational Capability

It's in the OP

There are three uncapitalized words that begin with, consecutively, "i," "o," and "c," but there's nothing really that says that those will later be used as an acronym. Most style guide say that if you're going to do that, capitalize the words and note the acronym on first use, like such:

Carlisle lauded the aircraft’s performance, noting that the aircraft had met all key criteria for reaching Initial Operational Capability (IOC.)"

 

[Head of Vengarl]

A-10s are supposedly getting extended until 2028. Which is good, you can't replace the fucking GOAT.

Aw yiss

The coolest goddamn jet ever.

 

[John Dunbar]

i was very confused since i though ioc was the international olympic committee and usaf was the united states athletics federation (not sure is that a thing).

 

[PeskyToaster]

What is with these Air Force personnel having entirely too fitting of names.

 

[antonz]

Good to hear, the whole development has been an absolute clusterfuck.

It's pretty sad how messed up we are in weapon development as of late, you'd think with all the constant war we'd be better at this by now.

Been a pretty messy development but thankfully in last year or so they have managed to turn things around a bunch. Plane is expected to be much cheaper than originally expected etc. too which is always nice.

Military development needs to return to the military in more ways. I mean used to be entire sections of the Military delegated to this stuff and now its the Military makes a checklist of what it wants and lets the Makers design which then lets Congressional meddling in.

The Littoral Combat Ships are a great example of something that should have never existed and a Proper Navy Design Board would have never considered.

 

[Zaheer]

Hopefully, it's worth the time, money, and frustration from development and testing.

 

[Joezie]

Good to hear, the whole development has been an absolute clusterfuck.

It's pretty sad how messed up we are in weapon development as of late, you'd think with all the constant war we'd be better at this by now.

It's a reality of modern weapons development that most people don't seem to understand. Modern weapons are incredibly specialized machines. They're hard as fuck to build and test.

JAS Gripen - Started in the late 70's early 80;s, wasn't officially put into service until 1997

Dassault Rafael - Late 70's to mid 80;s is where it began, and it took until 2001 to fully be able to introduce it into service.

Eurofighter Typhoon - 1983-2003 to get it into service.


F-22 Raptor 1981 beginnings, all the way to 2006 to get it introduced.

The F-35 is running right now on about 20 years into its development(1996 give or take), though when you compare it to the above aircraft, it's closest peers, you see, give or take a few years, they all dragged out at minimum almost a decade and half. Though you also see a rough patter of about 10 or so years after each aircraft's first flight giving it the ummph it sort of needed to get it on over with.

The Teen fighters(14,15,16,18) were introduced much faster, but also killed more of their pilots during testing and were more prone to accidents than say, an F-22 or 35. The Tomcat and Falcon were INFAMOUS for their engine failures early in their lives.

 

[Phantast2k]

Hmm, without factoring in the development cost, it doesn't seem so expensive at $ 85m.
Meanwhile a, in some areas last-gen, Eurofighter Typhoon appears to cost at least € 90m without stealth & VTOL...

A Sukhoi PAK FA costs $ 50, probably with crappy stealth though.

 

[Tubie]

Hmm, without factoring in the development cost, it doesn't seem so expensive at $ 85m.
Meanwhile a, in some areas last-gen, Eurofighter Typhoon appears to cost at least € 90m without stealth & VTOL...

A Sukhoi PAK FA costs $ 50, probably with crappy stealth though.

I find it amazing that Russia still hasn't caught up to 1980s US stealth technology.

 

[BradC00]

I see them fly everyday. /tear

 

[jett]

14 years ago I watched a documentary on the competition for the F35 contract.

14 years ago.

Jesus.

American government simply funding Lockheed here.

 

[MMarston]

14 years ago I watched a documentary on the competition for the F35 contract.

14 years ago.

Jesus.

I'm pretty sure I saw the same documentary you're thinking of.

Also, RIP F-22 Raptor. The fighter every military movie/game had a hard-on for.

 

[kmfdmpig]

I'm pretty sure I saw the same documentary you're thinking of.

Also, RIP F-22 Raptor. The fighter every military movie/game had a hard-on for.

They're not planning to get rid of the Raptor soon. I think the idea is that the Raptor will be the modern high end fighter (like the F-15) while the F-35 will be the more numerous fighter/attack plane (like the F-16). The Raptor will probably not be used much unless something hits the fan with a technologically advanced foe, which hopefully does not happen.

 

[Sunster]

Let's build a trillion of them.

 

[Joezie]

14 years ago I watched a documentary on the competition for the F35 contract.

14 years ago.

Jesus.

American government simply funding Lockheed here.

It's a reality of modern weapons development that most people don't seem to understand. Modern weapons are incredibly specialized machines. They're hard as fuck to build and test.

JAS Gripen - Started in the late 70's early 80;s, wasn't officially put into service until 1997

Dassault Rafael - Late 70's to mid 80;s is where it began, and it took until 2001 to fully be able to introduce it into service.

Eurofighter Typhoon - 1983-2003 to get it into service.


F-22 Raptor 1981 beginnings, all the way to 2006 to get it introduced.

The F-35 is running right now on about 20 years into its development(1996 give or take), though when you compare it to the above aircraft, it's closest peers, you see, give or take a few years, they all dragged out at minimum almost a decade and half. Though you also see a rough patter of about 10 or so years after each aircraft's first flight giving it the ummph it sort of needed to get it on over with.

The Teen fighters(14,15,16,18) were introduced much faster, but also killed more of their pilots during testing and were more prone to accidents than say, an F-22 or 35. The Tomcat and Falcon were INFAMOUS for their engine failures early in their lives.

.

 

[guek]

Gen. Hawk Carlisle... thats a badass name for an Air Force general lol

My first thought too, haha!

 

[Darkangel]

I hope Trudeau buys these instead of some glorified legacy aircraft. They're not ideal for the arctic, but they're the only modern choice available.

Sadly, the dual-engine F-22 isn't an option for us...

 

[Abstrusity]

I'm pretty sure I saw the same documentary you're thinking of.

Also, RIP F-22 Raptor. The fighter every military movie/game had a hard-on for.

It's a shame, because the F-15 is beauty incarnate.

Hell, the Raptor never even flew a successful combat flight until what, 2014?

Meanwhile the only air to air loss the F-15 ever had was an almost base import model in 91, and thus has a splash ratio of 98-1.

And they're not even sure it was air-to-air, either.

Look at this beast. While the Raptor's air intakes look like they're cowering behind the canopy, and the Lightning II's trapezoid garbage is even worse, the Eagle's are sharper, pointed forward, pointed EXACTLY where you DON'T want to be. Does it look like it gives a fuck?

I didn't think so.

 

[FelixOrion]

A-10s are supposedly getting extended until 2028. Which is good, you can't replace the fucking GOAT.

Aw yiss



The coolest goddamn jet ever.

My undergrad owns its own A-10 and flies it into the middle of thunderstorms and tornadoes.

For science.

 

[Joezie]

I hope Trudeau buys these instead of some glorified legacy aircraft. They're not ideal for the arctic, but they're the only modern choice available.

Sadly, the dual-engine F-22 isn't an option for us...

False: See US(Alaska), Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands, and Norway.

F-16/Gripen operators in Arctic conditions.

 

[Darkangel]

False: See US(Alaska), Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands, and Norway.

F-16/Gripen operators in Arctic conditions.

Single engine seems to work fine enough, but a dual setup is definitely ideal just in case.

The whole thing is probably overblown, but it's a common talking point in Canada.

 

[Joezie]

Single engine seems to work fine enough, but a dual setup is definitely ideal just in case.

The whole thing is probably overblown, but it's a common talking point in Canada.

There is no "Just in case". If your aircraft has 2 engines, it's because it isn't getting off the ground with only one not because of safety reasons.

2 engines require twice the maintenance because of the added complexity and in the event that one does fail, it is most likely going to take the second engine with it, rendering the safety point moot. Not to say that it always will, but safety concerns are overblown.