4 F-35Bs take out 9 attackers

[optimist]

Bill just hasn't been the same since the Aurora fiasco. He's just a bitter, twisted old man now. At least it looks like Boeing has kept him on the books to write fluff pieces.

[uclass]

Bill just hasn't been the same since the Aurora fiasco. He's just a bitter, twisted old man now. At least it looks like Boeing has kept him on the books to write fluff pieces.

Aurora fiasco?

[XanderCrews]

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/dunford-mulls-f-35b-ioc-decision-4-bs-take-out-9-attackers/

Dunford Mulls F-35B IOC Decision; 4 Bs Take Out 9 Attackers
By COLIN CLARK
on July 27, 2015 at 6:34 PM


Marines perform first F-35B vertical take-off, landing at Eglin

WASHINGTON: During the Marine’s recent operational readiness test of the F-35B, four of the Marine aircraft went up against nine enemy aircraft.

“It went very poorly for the bad guys,” Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, deputy commandant for aviation, told me this afternoon. Davis provided few details, saying they were classified, He did say that the F-35s faced a threat that “we have never put an F-16 or a Harrier against.” The F-35Bs, he said, did a “great job.”

I asked Davis about the recent news that the F-35A did not fare that well in dogfight conditions against an F-16. “I love the F-16. It was a great airplane. Still is pretty good, but i would not want to be in a fight against an F-35.”

In a clear message to A-10 advocates, Davis said the F-35B performed extremely well at Close Air Support missions using Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) and laster-guided GBU-12s. The aircraft does need a cannon, he conceded, for some missions. The gun is currently undergoing its first tests mounted on an aircraft but it won’t be deployed on the plane until 2017 when the Block 3F software is installed. But Davis was unequivocal in his enthusiasm for the aircraft. “No airplane in the world will be able to touch this jet at Close Air Support,” he told reporters.

Davis said he had made his recommendation about the F-35B’s Initial Operating Capabilitity to Marine Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford: “He’s got all the paperwork now and he’s going through it.” Breaking D readers will remember that Dunford has been nominated to become the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and has been a bit busy recently dealing with nomination hearings and such.

Davis said early models of the F-35B are currently maintaining a 60 percent to 65 percent mission readiness rate, something he expects to rise substantially as more newer planes come to the line. He noted a training squadron with newer planes was “getting 70 to 75 percent rates the other day.” The overall goal is 80 percent later in the program.

The Marines plan to buy 353 F-35Bs and Davis said he has heard absolutely nothing to convince him that number should be cut. It seems pretty certain he has recommended to Dunford that IOC be approved, but, as he put it, that’s the commandant’s decision.

LOL at those comments. jesus

[bigjku]

Bill just hasn't been the same since the Aurora fiasco. He's just a bitter, twisted old man now. At least it looks like Boeing has kept him on the books to write fluff pieces.

Aurora fiasco?

Bill reported a lot on a supposed Mach 5 or something like that spy plane to replace the SR-71. He basically told everyone it existed and had for a good while. In the end he looked like an idiot.

[XanderCrews]

Bill just hasn't been the same since the Aurora fiasco. He's just a bitter, twisted old man now. At least it looks like Boeing has kept him on the books to write fluff pieces.

Aurora fiasco?

Bill reported a lot on a supposed Mach 5 or something like that spy plane to replace the SR-71. He basically told everyone it existed and had for a good while. In the end he looked like an idiot.

The air force basically played him and he fell for it

[Gums]

Salute!

Sweets published his book "Aurora" in 1993 and I have a copy I got at the USAF Armament Museum here at Eglin. Some good ideas and some conspiracy theory stuff.

I don't think Sweets was discredited until years later.

Gums sends....

[bring_it_on]

Salute!

Sweets published his book "Aurora" in 1993 and I have a copy I got at the USAF Armament Museum here at Eglin. Some good ideas and some conspiracy theory stuff.

I don't think Sweets was discredited until years later.

Gums sends....

Its on Amazon for 1 Cent (Used)

[uclass]

Bill just hasn't been the same since the Aurora fiasco. He's just a bitter, twisted old man now. At least it looks like Boeing has kept him on the books to write fluff pieces.

Aurora fiasco?

Bill reported a lot on a supposed Mach 5 or something like that spy plane to replace the SR-71. He basically told everyone it existed and had for a good while. In the end he looked like an idiot.

That sounds like our Bill. I actually remember its speed increasing as it became more of a lost cause.

[popcorn]

He seems to be on more solid footing with the RQ-180 though but Aurora must have scarred him for life LOL.

[sferrin]

He seems to be on more solid footing with the RQ-180 though but Aurora must have scarred him for life LOL.

He did not take kindly to me saying the RQ-180 was probably another fictional aircraft.

[bring_it_on]

The RQ-180 has been confirmed to journalists so I think he's fine on that front. He has a to of really solid reporting from the archives. His mid 90's article on the F-22 update was awesome (Janes) and short of buying an actual book on the aircraft I haven't seen anything that was better at the time. The problem comes when you try to become an analyst without doing academic stuff that stands up to a peer review and you essentially pick sides and make it about EGO as opposed to sticking to the facts and reporting !!

[sferrin]

The RQ-180 has been confirmed to journalists so I think he's fine on that front. He has a to of really solid reporting from the archives. His mid 90's article on the F-22 update was awesome (Janes) and short of buying an actual book on the aircraft I haven't seen anything that was better at the time. The problem comes when you try to become an analyst without doing academic stuff that stands up to a peer review and you essentially pick sides and make it about EGO as opposed to sticking to the facts and reporting !!

Two of the best reads. . .three of the best reads I've ever seen on the F-22 are Jay Miller's Aerofax book on the F-22, Advanced Tactical Fighter to F-22 Raptor, and an article in one of Airtime Publishing's books. And don't mistake me, I've got probably half a dozen books that were written by BS but over the years he seems to have had more and more difficulty maintaining objectivity. He's put out some real howlers.

[KamenRiderBlade]

The RQ-180 has been confirmed to journalists so I think he's fine on that front. He has a to of really solid reporting from the archives. His mid 90's article on the F-22 update was awesome (Janes) and short of buying an actual book on the aircraft I haven't seen anything that was better at the time. The problem comes when you try to become an analyst without doing academic stuff that stands up to a peer review and you essentially pick sides and make it about EGO as opposed to sticking to the facts and reporting !!

Two of the best reads. . .three of the best reads I've ever seen on the F-22 are Jay Miller's Aerofax book on the F-22, Advanced Tactical Fighter to F-22 Raptor, and an article in one of Airtime Publishing's books. And don't mistake me, I've got probably half a dozen books that were written by BS but over the years he seems to have had more and more difficulty maintaining objectivity. He's put out some real howlers.

Maybe he's suffering from Dementia or Alzheimers

[nht]

Good lord that breaking defense article was poorly written. Here's a better one where the General's statements make more sense:

Money quote:

"I am very confident that I could send them pretty much to pretty much anyplace in the world to employ this weapon systems in a close air support environment," he added. "My Marines would get the support on the ground from this airplane and I don't need a big support package to go in and clear the airspace for them. They'll be able to go in as a two-ship or a four-ship and be able to do the CAS we need to do without a big support package -- that is unprecedented."

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015 ... ation.html

The context of the threats that they wouldn't put a F-18 or Harrier in isn't an air threat but presumably a modern IADS with double digit SAMs.

[spazsinbad]

I do not think many reporters understand what they are told but I could be at fault also - no one is paying me however. That 'McGarry' MilCOM article was first posted here by 'Corsair1963': viewtopic.php?f=59&t=27557&p=296909&hilit=McGarry#p296909 I read it but do not recall seeing this part:

"[Gen. Davis says]..."I'd like to have full four-ship fusion, but I'll make do with a two-plus-two," he said, referring to a workaround in which sensor data from two aircraft are shared with another pair of aircraft via a Link 16 tactical data connection...."

My question (IF I WAS A REPORTER) would be: MADL is the fusion connection Shirley? But I could be todally rong & a dancing fool. And: Has that article been rewritten?