$100 Million F-35B Crash

“Mayday Mayday Werewolf One I’m on fire! Skip the GCA, I’m coming straight in!”
 
“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!!
 
SkyDog58 said:
“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!!
Click to expand...


2 outa 3 ain’t bad, also used one in combat yesterday I think...
 
SkyDog58 said:
“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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
3393RP said:
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.
Click to expand...
It’s the V/STOL capability that is needed and what the F-35B is valuable for.

Whether or not we like the price tag, the F-35B will likely see more operational use than the A or C.

To say there is no necessity is to plead ignorance WRT amphibious operations.

And for the record, I’m a Navy guy who has done 3 department head tours in the amphib Navy including being on the test ship for F-35B DT.

I personally don’t like the price tag, but my green friends badly need a replacement for the AV-8. It will most definitely get used.
 
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".
 
3393RP said:
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".
Click to expand...
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.

And how many times have the US Marines done a contested amphibious landing in the last 50 years? If the Marines are supposed to be able to conduct amphibious operations, worldwide, with short notice, it's going to have to fight with what it brings which is why the -35B is needed.
 
I spent 12 years training out of a grass field, living in a tent, and eating MREs. Went to war flying from a 10,000 ft runway, living in a climate controlled trailer and eating BK / Pizza Hut. You hope for the later but you still need people and aircraft that can operate in the slight chance you get the former.
 
3393RP said:
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".
Click to expand...

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."
 
Fwiw, not true STOVL, but I spent 8 months operating the AV-8 off a taxiway in the NAG while the airfield’s runway was being repaved, in the very recent past. Much more comfortable landing at 60 kts on a 75’ taxiway than it would have at 120+.
 
3393RP said:
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".
Click to expand...
LHD based AV-8s have done quite a bit of offensive strikes in NAVCENT in the last 10 years.

The fixed wing STOVL brings an organic strike capability to the Marine Expeditionary Unit that would otherwise not be available. We don’t pair up the amphibs with CVNs, so if we need to do a small scale strike mission, OR we don’t want to attract the attention that a CVN gets, the AV-8 is a pretty handy thing to have.

We’re talking modern amphibious ops here, not Normandy-style opposed assaults.
 
kyleb said:
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."
Click to expand...
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 will defer to the knowledge of those that perform these duties.

I still think using an airplane that costs $100M for CAS is nuts.
 
STOVL is realistic. VTOL with a true combat load is a pipe dream.

Cheers
 
X3 Skier said:
VTOL with a true combat load is a pipe dream.
Click to expand...
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
 
[/QUOTE]
I remember that. Destroyed Rhode Island's entire
nauga said:
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
Click to expand...
The public perception is otherwise. I'm not a fan of the program, even though I was paid for my small part of it.
Edit: These aren't $100 million dollar planes if you consider the development costs. Through the live of the program the planes will tally maybe ten times that—each.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
These aren't $100 million dollar planes if you consider the development costs.
Click to expand...
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
 
Fearless Tower said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wondering if that's a typo. I saw that and thought hmm, did they mean to say 2016 not 2006?
 
kyleb said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's what happens when there are no copy editors...
 
nauga said:
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
Click to expand...

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
 
X3 Skier said:
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
Click to expand...


Here's how the DOD buys things, from hammers to F-35s:

upload_2018-10-1_13-16-3.png
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.
 
jsstevens said:
And now we Other Transaction Authority (OTA) to circumvent all that.
Click to expand...


Yep! We have several OTAs. Some are funded by one agency and managed by another to get a product for yet a third. Makes for a melluva hess.
 
nauga said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
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.
Click to expand...


Oh, I hope we build lots and lots and LOTS of ‘em. I need my pension funded after I retire.
 
SkyDog58 said:
“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!!
Click to expand...
dam...had already copied and was about to paste...beat me to it!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top