“It was the first crash of an F-35 fighter jet since they became operational in 2006, said another military official, also speaking on the condition of anonymity. Friday’s incident also marked the first time a pilot had ejected from an F-35B, the official said.”
First crash and first ejection and they happened in the same incident. Amazing!!
One? They’ve only used one in actual combat?!2 outa 3 ain’t bad, also used one in combat yesterday I think...
Yes, but it shot down the enemy's entire air force in a single engagement, while bombing their only flight training facility to rubble.One? They’ve only used one in actual combat?!
Speaking on condition of anonymity because he’s full of crap.“It was the first crash of an F-35 fighter jet since they became operational in 2006, said another military official, also speaking on the condition of anonymity.
One? They’ve only used one in actual combat?!
It’s the V/STOL capability that is needed and what the F-35B is valuable for.The F-35B is a ridiculous waste of money IMO. I predict its VTOL capability will never be needed in operations.
Sure, they'll use it that way, because they can. But necessity? None.
Speaking on condition of anonymity because he’s full of crap.
The F-35s were in no way ‘operational’ in 2006!
You're mistaken about the British not having carriers for the Harrier during the Falklands war. They also used some cargo ships, mostly to transport helicopters and Harriers with the latter transferring to the carriers as soon as they could.But how many times has the AV-8 been used in a role in war in the last fifty years that couldn't have been performed by a conventional fighter? A couple of weeks in the Falklands? It was used there because the UK was using the decks of civilian ships for flight ops, they didn't have a carrier. Three days in Desert Storm?
While the F-35B may get "operational use" in training, I see few, if any reasons it would be useful "on the beach".
But how many times has the AV-8 been used in a role in war in the last fifty years that couldn't have been performed by a conventional fighter? A couple of weeks in the Falklands? It was used there because the UK was using the decks of civilian ships for flight ops, they didn't have a carrier. Three days in Desert Storm?
While the F-35B may get "operational use" in training, I see few, if any reasons it would be useful "on the beach".
LHD based AV-8s have done quite a bit of offensive strikes in NAVCENT in the last 10 years.But how many times has the AV-8 been used in a role in war in the last fifty years that couldn't have been performed by a conventional fighter? A couple of weeks in the Falklands? It was used there because the UK was using the decks of civilian ships for flight ops, they didn't have a carrier. Three days in Desert Storm?
While the F-35B may get "operational use" in training, I see few, if any reasons it would be useful "on the beach".
That’s not entirely true. The Marines would be plenty happy to have Navy strike overhead, but when the CVN is tied up in the Gulf and the ARG is down off the coast of Africa, it’s nice to have an in-house capability.I tend to agree, but the Marine logic is "The only people we can trust to be there to provide CAS and Air Cover are other Marines. The Navy proved at Guadalcanal that they might pull the rug out from under us, and the USAF may or may not have a base close enough to support us. So give us fleet carriers and the corresponding aircraft, or we'll make do with STOVL/Jeep Carriers."
Yes, but it shot down the enemy's entire air force in a single engagement, while bombing their only flight training facility to rubble.
Ron Wanttaja
F-35B isn't intended to be VTOL at all, IIRC, certainly not with weapons. Harrier hasn't claimed to be VTOL with a combat loadout for decades.VTOL with a true combat load is a pipe dream.
The public perception is otherwise. I'm not a fan of the program, even though I was paid for my small part of it.F-35B isn't intended to be VTOL at all, IIRC, certainly not with weapons. Harrier hasn't claimed to be VTOL with a combat loadout for decades.
Nauga,
semijetborne
These are $100M planes BECAUSE the development costs are amortized over the acquisition cost. That’s why military airplanes get more expensive when the purchase numbers are reduced.These aren't $100 million dollar planes if you consider the development costs.
Speaking on condition of anonymity because he’s full of crap.
The F-35s were in no way ‘operational’ in 2006!
They were just starting to do the most basic developmental testing with prototypes then.
The USMC didn’t even start OT on the F-35B until 2016.
I'd be just as inclined to believe the reporter heard or wrote down the date wrong. There's a real problem with fact checking in that profession these days.
These are $100M planes BECAUSE the development costs are amortized over the acquisition cost. That’s why military airplanes get more expensive when the purchase numbers are reduced.
The unit cost probably also contains some funding for supply chain/spares support but probably not much in the way of operating costs.
Nauga,
and a little peanut butter
If you something to put you to sleep, read the law and resulting rules for how to report the cost of any weapon system the DoD buys. I had to learn that back in the day and still have nightmares. I quickly learned another valuable truth, sunk cost are irrelevant to future decisions except emotionally.
A guy I know was hiring a Finance Chief. He asked each candidate what was 2+2. One guy replied, “What would you like it to be?” He was hired on the spot.
Cheers
Here's how the DOD buys things, from hammers to F-35s:
View attachment 67711
https://www.wired.com/2010/09/revealed-pentagons-craziest-powerpoint-slide-ever/
Any questions?
And now we Other Transaction Authority (OTA) to circumvent all that.
Actually, I think that you'll find that the actual cost to build and fly one of these over the program lifetime is hundreds of millions, unless they build a lot of them. And I hope they don't.These are $100M planes BECAUSE the development costs are amortized over the acquisition cost. That’s why military airplanes get more expensive when the purchase numbers are reduced.
The unit cost probably also contains some funding for supply chain/spares support but probably not much in the way of operating costs.
Nauga,
and a little peanut butter
Actually, I think that you'll find that the actual cost to build and fly one of these over the program lifetime is hundreds of millions, unless they build a lot of them. And I hope they don't.
dam...had already copied and was about to paste...beat me to it!!“It was the first crash of an F-35 fighter jet since they became operational in 2006, said another military official, also speaking on the condition of anonymity. Friday’s incident also marked the first time a pilot had ejected from an F-35B, the official said.”
First crash and first ejection and they happened in the same incident. Amazing!!