Dogfight : F35 vs F16

[GScholz]

Time will tell. Let's just leave it at that. None of us are in a position to change anything... Least of all each other's minds apparently.

[Gman]

Oh and Serenity... You, a USN pilot, telling me that US pilots can't speak their minds... And you say this in a thread on a forum open to the public where you bash the F-35... Must be some kind of record in irony..

There have been articles written about USAF officers being ORDERED to not speak badly of the F35.  This has been covered before - and like I said before, WHEN has the USAF EVER had to order someone to not slag a new fighter?  From the last one, the F22, to the F15E, the F15/F16, and so on, all there was in the media was rave reviews, and rightfully so, from those who flew/tested them at first.  Yet - standing orders are needed to not slag the F35 in public.

War is Boring, FoxAlpha, Defense Weekly - all of them covered the 8 page internal memo sent to all pilots/operators/techs of the F35, instructing them NOT to say anything negative, and also providing very lame canned responses to any criticism.  Why was this not done with the F22, F15E, etc etc when those new fighters came out?  Or the Super Hornet for something recent - even with its range and other areas which could be criticized when has ANY pilot of the thing need to be ORDERED not to slag it? 

[GScholz]

Could you please provide a link to that article? Would be interesting to read.

[Zimme83]

http://cdn.warisboring.com/images/F-35-Public-Affairs-Guidance.pdf

[Zimme83]

And even pentagon recognize that there are a lot of issues, some of them rather serious: http://uk.businessinsider.com/here-are-all-the-problems-with-the-f-35-that-the-pentagon-found-in-a-2014-report-2015-3?r=US&IR=T

[GScholz]

1. PURPOSE: Provide guidance to Airmen on the F-35A in order to:
1) Articulate the capabilities of the aircraft and explain it is a capability warfighters must have (explain why we need the F-35)
2) Debunk false narratives and inaccuracies reflected in news media reporting; and
3) Emphasize the importance of the Air Force fielding the capability and having the capacity to best support combatant commander needs.

This may not come as a surprise to most of you, but that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Especially point no. 2. If a military program is unjustly demonized in the media the military must be allowed to defend it self.

Due to pre-2010 setbacks in the program and perceived performance setbacks, narratives have emerged in the news media stating the aircraft is too expensive, consistently behind schedule and is not able to achieve its’ stated missions. Air Force communicators must be prepared to consistently confront these inaccurate narratives with explanations of the aircraft’s unique and critical contributions to the joint warfighter with accurate understanding and assessment of the program’s developmental progress.

It is important to help U.S. and international audiences understand why investing in the F-35 is a defense priority...

Again perfectly reasonable. Educating personnel in how to respond to inaccurate claims and accusations is not subterfuge in my honest opinion. If anything, this shows how important the USAF believes in the F-35 and how important they think it is to their future.

[Zimme83]

What i don't get is why they start mass production Before the plane is even remotely ready for it. It must be very expensive to implement redesigns on already built Aircrafts. I suspect its just a way of making it looks like the plane is entering service in large numbers.

But truth is that no matter of how operational they say it is, the plane isn't even remotely ready to see combat. Weapons are not integrated, Avionics isn't working as required, it has not all weather capability etc etc.

[GScholz]

Starting production this early in the development is a mistake you won't find anyone in the USAF defending. In fact I recall a video interview with a USAF officer literally saying "we won't do that again". It was neat in theory, but didn't work in real life.

[Zimme83]

But when decisions are made just to create the illusion of progress then the alarm bells are ringing...

[GScholz]

I'm not seeing that... What exactly are you referring to?

[Zimme83]

The decision to declare it operational is the most obvious one.

[GScholz]

None of the F-35's have been declared (fully) operational. The F-35B has entered IOC or initial operational capability, but that's it. If you think otherwise you are clearly misinformed or misunderstanding what being reported.

Initial operating capability or Initial operational capability (IOC) is the state achieved when a capability is available in its minimum usefully deployable form.
... IOC includes operating the training and maintaining parts of the overall system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_operating_capability

[Zimme83]

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2015/07/31/f35-operational-marine-corps-joint-strike-fighter/30937689/

"I am pleased to announce that VMFA-121 has achieved initial operational capability in the F-35B, as defined by requirements outlined in the June 2014 Joint Report to Congressional Defense Committees," Dunford said in a statement. "VMFA-121 has ten aircraft in the Block 2B configuration with the requisite performance envelope and weapons clearances, to include the training, sustainment capabilities, and infrastructure to deploy to an austere site or a ship. It is capable of conducting close air support, offensive and defensive counter air, air interdiction, assault support escort and armed reconnaissance as part of a Marine Air Ground Task Force, or in support of the Joint Force."

That statement is nothing but bs.

[GScholz]

"I am pleased to announce that VMFA-121 has achieved initial operational capability in the F-35B."

[Zimme83]

"I am pleased to announce that VMFA-121 has achieved initial operational capability in the F-35B."

Read the entire statement..