F-35 test pilot results. Doesn't look promising

[Anthony]

My mind gets hazy. I think the F111 was pushed by macnamara as a "cost saver " to be used by all the services. This is how it was sold to the public. In the end it pleased no one and was a turd in a punch bowl. The F35 is the same absurd thinking only much more expensive with some models being over 200 million per copy. Think lobbyists. Think big presidential campaign contributors....like Lockeed martin.

That is what I remember of the F-111 also, but if you talk to Ron Levy it served a multitude of roles, and he flew right seat in one.

Remember what Eisenhower said about the military-industrial complex. Chilling actually.

 

[Fearless Tower]

My personal opinion is that the AV-8 was a colossal waste of the already small USMC aviation budget, and they would have been much better served buying more Hornets, which can do everything a Harrier can plus a lot more (though admittedly can't land vertically, yawn). Same goes for the F-35B, the jet that almost collapsed the JSF program, which has probably added more total dollars to the development than any other item. Again, could have just bought F-35C, common with the Navy, and just admitted that trying to fly a useful combat load off a VSTOL boat is not possible. Which it absolutely isn't.

I typically agree with you, but in this case I think you are a little short-sighted.

The Marines have long had (and continue to have) a defined requirement for a strike aircraft that can be deployed organic to the ARG, which means it must be able to launch and recover from the large deck amphib. Hornets can't do that.

The CVN and its air wing are key components of power projection from the sea no doubt, but they are not the be all/end all. With very few exceptions we don't deploy true Expeditionary Strike Groups (CSG/ARG combined). Also, sometimes you need to conduct an op without drawing the attention that the CVN does.

That is why the Marine Corps loves the F-35B right now. Whether or not it is worth the ridiculous cost....that is another debate. But buying more Hornets is not the solution for the Marines.

If you would like to discuss more specifics, PM me and we can go to a more appropriate venue.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

In a more sane setting the marines would simply be served by the naval air arm. The osprey Is a typical example of the marines needing " something special" which turned out to be another Rube Goldberg nightmare. The F35 model the marines say they need is a totally overpriced , high maintenence nightmare that the taxpayers should reject but instead simply say "duhhhhh". To think the F 35 will replace the Fairchild F10 as a ground support aircraft is absurd and another lie perpetrated by lobbyists. Eisenhower saw what was happening long ago and from his hands on experience during the big war, tried to stop it but ito no avail. It's totally out of control.

 

[Fearless Tower]

In a more sane setting the marines would simply be served by the naval air arm. The osprey Is a typical example of the marines needing " something special" which turned out to be another Rube Goldberg nightmare.

I'm sorry, but modern amphibious operations do not work that way. This isn't WWII.

In my 3 sea tours in the amphib Navy, I have never once had support from USN TACAIR.

As for the MV-22 being a nightmare, the Marines today would disagree. Once they got the bugs worked out, the MV-22 has been a pretty valuable asset to the deploying MEUs.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

I'm sorry, but modern amphibious operations do not work that way. This isn't WWII.

As for the MV-22 being a nightmare, the Marines today would disagree. Once they got the bugs worked out, the MV-22 has been a pretty valuable asset to the deploying MEUs.

Ohhhhh please do enlighten us on how things work " today" ! Please do with your vast experience . No service arm will ever disagree with money being thrown at their pet projects. The osprey has proven itself, time and again to be a loud , big target, unstable on landing and wayyyy overpriced both in initial cost and ongoing Maintence. In actual combat it would be a super dud. Better suited to carefully staged airshows or display flying for idiot congressmen.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Ohhhhh please do enlighten us on how things work " today" ! Please do with your vast experience . No service arm will ever disagree with money being thrown at their pet projects. The osprey has proven itself, time and again to be a loud , big target, unstable on landing and wayyyy overpriced both in initial cost and ongoing Maintence. In actual combat it would be a super dud. Better suited to carefully staged airshows or display flying for idiot congressmen.

I did there Jimmy. Please enlighten us with your credentials.

I'd love to see some references (produced since the MV-22s began to operationally deploy) that back up your comments. I'd love to see some quotes from Marines saying they wish they had an H-46 instead of an Osprey.

In the last 15 years I have deployed with H-46s and MV-22s. I've conducted strike operations with AV-8s. I've spent a couple weeks underway with the F-35B and talked to the test pilots. If you don't like the cost - fine. Write your Congressman. But don't come here and argue about capabilities that you clearly do not understand.

BTW, Jimmy, I'm still waiting for you to tell us where the wing spar is on the DC-3....

 

[35 AoA]

I typically agree with you, but in this case I think you are a little short-sighted.

The Marines have long had (and continue to have) a defined requirement for a strike aircraft that can be deployed organic to the ARG, which means it must be able to launch and recover from the large deck amphib. Hornets can't do that.

The CVN and its air wing are key components of power projection from the sea no doubt, but they are not the be all/end all. With very few exceptions we don't deploy true Expeditionary Strike Groups (CSG/ARG combined). Also, sometimes you need to conduct an op without drawing the attention that the CVN does.

That is why the Marine Corps loves the F-35B right now. Whether or not it is worth the ridiculous cost....that is another debate. But buying more Hornets is not the solution for the Marines.

If you would like to discuss more specifics, PM me and we can go to a more appropriate venue.

jeezus.....drinking the kool aide? JK, I get it, and I am pretty ignorant of the small deck Navy/USMC MAG. Still, I do think the scenarios where the MAG needs FW tacair that isn't available from the CVN or USAF are pretty niche. Have they happened? Yeah, but that is a very specific part of the world which is actually quite serviced by a lot of other people (we did from the CVN)

 

[Scrabo]

I was surprised the Brits retired the Harrier as a "cost saving" measure but to a lot of people's surprise, kept the expensive Tornados instead.

 

[Witmo]

jeezus.....drinking the kool aide? JK, I get it, and I am pretty ignorant of the small deck Navy/USMC MAG. Still, I do think the scenarios where the MAG needs FW tacair that isn't available from the CVN or USAF are pretty niche. Have they happened? Yeah, but that is a very specific part of the world which is actually quite serviced by a lot of other people (we did from the CVN)

The Marines are a niche service. Many people think that since they have airplanes, they're like the Air Force and since they have riflemen, they are just another flavor of Army and since they have dedicated ships, they're Navy, so its just wasteful to duplicate existing capability. In reality, the Marines have unique missions that require them to be totally self-sufficient for a limited period of time. If they don't bring it with them, they ain't got it and they ain't gonna get it from another service given the constraints of time and distance. Sure, you can take organic assets away from them and tell them they'll have to rely on support from the other services but then you just gave up the flexibility and ready force projection that the Marines bring to a situation. For example, in a very short period of time, the Marines can deploy a MEU or other force package and execute a NEO (non combatant evacuation) where there just isn't time to plan a combined force operation even if one were possible.

 

[Henning]

But...but... the Marines are Navy!

 

[Velocity173]

But...but... the Marines are Navy!

Negative. They're a department within the Navy...the men's department!

 

[Witmo]

Half my career was working with other services in both training and real world operational planning. Each service has strengths and weaknesses. I've seen us get better and better at working together in joint operations. Even so, Navy, Air Force and Army doctrine do not mesh together seamlessly and it takes a bunch of coordination to get everyone on the same page. Given an emergency situation, a pop up contingency on the other side of the world, without nearby friendly bases, without air and sea ports, without in theater weapons and supply depots, you're looking at an extended time frame before Naval, Air and Land Forces could be brought to bear. The Marines, however,are manned, equipped and trained to be able to respond on short notice with enough logistics to sustain operations without resupply, for long enough to either accomplish the mission, or long enough to buy the time necessary to bring the other services with their heavier capabilities to bear. Marines have to have what they need on hand, organic to their force, or we lose their ability to act swiftly and decisively, independent of foreign support.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Half my career was working with other services in both training and real world operational planning. Each service has strengths and weaknesses. I've seen us get better and better at working together in joint operations. Even so, Navy, Air Force and Army doctrine do not mesh together seamlessly and it takes a bunch of coordination to get everyone on the same page. Given an emergency situation, a pop up contingency on the other side of the world, without nearby friendly bases, without air and sea ports, without in theater weapons and supply depots, you're looking at an extended time frame before Naval, Air and Land Forces could be brought to bear. The Marines, however,are manned, equipped and trained to be able to respond on short notice with enough logistics to sustain operations without resupply, for long enough to either accomplish the mission, or long enough to buy the time necessary to bring the other services with their heavier capabilities to bear. Marines have to have what they need on hand, organic to their force, or we lose their ability to act swiftly and decisively, independent of foreign support.

. This is typical lobbyists type humbug to justify blowing billions!
And your saying the special forces,or say the seals, are not equipped to respond quickly? The F35 is a disaster, especially the model the marines " must have".The cost is absurd and the final cost of this taxpayers nightmare program is over one and a half trillion. As stated by others, the marines are the Navy and should fall under the navy's procurement. Things like their F35 requirements and the osprey are horrific examples of interagency rivalry and waste of taxpayers money. It's been very well investigated and reported on the last five years in spite of the "so called" experts including those reporting here.

 

[Henning]

Half my career was working with other services in both training and real world operational planning. Each service has strengths and weaknesses. I've seen us get better and better at working together in joint operations. Even so, Navy, Air Force and Army doctrine do not mesh together seamlessly and it takes a bunch of coordination to get everyone on the same page. Given an emergency situation, a pop up contingency on the other side of the world, without nearby friendly bases, without air and sea ports, without in theater weapons and supply depots, you're looking at an extended time frame before Naval, Air and Land Forces could be brought to bear. The Marines, however,are manned, equipped and trained to be able to respond on short notice with enough logistics to sustain operations without resupply, for long enough to either accomplish the mission, or long enough to buy the time necessary to bring the other services with their heavier capabilities to bear. Marines have to have what they need on hand, organic to their force, or we lose their ability to act swiftly and decisively, independent of foreign support.

The question has to come to bear though, "Why do we need an invasion force?" Everything the U.S. now is, the founders desperately wanted to avoid. We now provide the standing army for the very forces that the revolution was meant to free us from, and they have control over the economy and nation.

I think all too many service people are figuring out the truth of what they are fighting for, that's why suicide losses are on par with combat losses.

 

[Witmo]

. This is typical lobbyists type humbug to justify blowing billions!
And your saying the special forces,or say the seals, are not equipped to respond quickly? The F35 is a disaster, especially the model the marines " must have".The cost is absurd and the final cost of this taxpayers nightmare program is over one and a half trillion. As stated by others, the marines are the Navy and should fall under the navy's procurement. Things like their F35 requirements and the osprey are horrific examples of interagency rivalry and waste of taxpayers money. It's been very well investigated and reported on the last five years in spite of the "so called" experts including those reporting here.

Based on your posts, there's no danger of you ever being called an expert in anything.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Based on your posts, there's no danger of you ever being called an expert in anything.

Tim, I doubt your qualified to judge anything I've written. Try reading more as all that I've written is easily researched and has been reported by respected aviation reporters and researchers. Too much TV has probably dulled your senses.

 

[Witmo]

Tim, I doubt your qualified to judge anything I've written. Try reading more as all that I've written is easily researched and has been reported by respected aviation reporters and researchers. Too much TV has probably dulled your senses.

You quote nothing and cite nothing and expect us to take your opinion as fact based on what you read? Yeah, right. I've actually flown tactical aircraft in combat and worked on planning staffs for numerous contingencies. What "expertise" do you bring to the discussion? Too much TV, indeed! You think research consists of reading the editorial page of a Hearst rag written by whomever has a political ax to grind and take it as gospel, and then tell me to do the research. I'll get right on it. In the meantime why don't you defend your assertions with fact instead of just repeating opinions of unnamed experts.

 

[German guy]

I thought some of you might be interested in this: F-35A AF-2 First Gun Live Fire

Copied from the description on YouTube:

AF-2 First Gun Live Fire
9 June 2015
Test # 736

Test Pilot Maj. Andrew Rollins

10 rounds are fired.

The 25mm GAU-22/A produced by General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems is an externally powered Gatling gun selected for installation in the F-35 Lightning II fighter.

GD-OTS developed the GAU-22/A for both the internal and external F-35 gun systems. This four-barrel gun is a derivative of the highly successful five-barrel, 25mm GAU-12/U gun also developed and built by GD-OTS

Each of the four gun barrels has a breech bolt assembly that fires once per gun revolution. This ensures long barrel and breech life by distributing the heat and firing forces over all four barrels and breech positions. Continuous rotary motion reduces the impact loads on gun components, extending parts life and resulting in extremely high gun reliability.

The GAU-22/A is over 40 pounds lighter and occupies 20 percent less volume than the comparably equipped 5-barrel counterpart. The gun is easily configured to mount in either the F-35A internal gun system installation or the F-35B/C missionized gun pods.

The demonstrated versatility, coupled with significant combat lethality, makes the GAU-22/A gun an ideal candidate for air, land and sea platforms requiring an effective weapon for a variety of missions against a broad range of targets.

Gun type: Four-barrel, 25mm, externally powered Gatling Gun
Weight: 230 pounds (104.3 kg)
Rate of fire: Up to 3,300 shots per minute
Dispersion: 5 milliradians diameter, 80 percent circle (1.4 milliradians, 1-sigma radius)
Average recoil force: 3,700 pounds (16.5 kN)
Muzzle velocity
(TP, HEI ammunition): 3,560 feet (1,085m) per second
(API ammunition): 3,400 feet (1,036m) per second
Drive system: Hydraulic, electric, pneumatic
Feed system: Linked or linkless

https://youtu.be/CFoJ93Kb5z0

 

[UngaWunga]

Neat, but still a waste of money.

 

[hindsight2020]

I'm a puke Reservist zipper suited sun god, but I agree, Marine niche procurement requirements leading every single Joint capitalization project into runaway cost oblivion for the rest of the DOD, is the stupidest sh$t I've heard proffered in the name of National Security. F-35B, MV-22s, fall squarely in that category.

Then again, I never believed any of this was genuinely made in that name. I truly believe much of the impetus was and is made in the name of pork barrel in an economy otherwise so decimated by the treasonous transformation into a McWage service-based economy. In that light, these projects have been an economic success.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Half my career was working with other services in both training and real world operational planning. Each service has strengths and weaknesses. I've seen us get better and better at working together in joint operations. Even so, Navy, Air Force and Army doctrine do not mesh together seamlessly and it takes a bunch of coordination to get everyone on the same page. Given an emergency situation, a pop up contingency on the other side of the world, without nearby friendly bases, without air and sea ports, without in theater weapons and supply depots, you're looking at an extended time frame before Naval, Air and Land Forces could be brought to bear. The Marines, however,are manned, equipped and trained to be able to respond on short notice with enough logistics to sustain operations without resupply, for long enough to either accomplish the mission, or long enough to buy the time necessary to bring the other services with their heavier capabilities to bear. Marines have to have what they need on hand, organic to their force, or we lose their ability to act swiftly and decisively, independent of foreign support.

During the big war, WW2 , the marines were always backed up by the navy and the army after they landed . Okinawa is a classic example. If you read the history of their fighting , you'll find this to be true. Usually the navy prepared their landing with a naval bombardment and was nearby most of the time, and supplied them, also gave them major air support during an invasion.