SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Aviation Week reports:
As senior Pentagon editor, there are perks to being a scribe. May 26, I had the opportunity to witness aviation history with a small group of reporters invited to the USS Wasp amphibious ship to witness a few hours of the first-ever F-35B Operational Test (OT-1) trials off the coast of North Carolina. I'm posting some of the many videos I collected to give our readers a sense of what we saw on the boat.
During OT-1, actual Marines -- not test overseers -- are operating the six F-35Bs that embarked May 18 for the tests; this includes pilots and maintainers. During DT (developmental testing), we got to see firsthand the first vertical landing and short takeoff at sea, but in OT-1, the Marines are demonstrating a cadence to operations to gain confidence the single-engine, stealthy fighters can assimilate into an air wing onboard the amphibious ship, which will include other platforms: the MV-22, CH-53E/K, AH-W/Z and unmanned air systems among them. This is all leading up to the operational debut of the F-35B, slated in July.
The article contains an 8 minute video of the F-35B with an accompanying written overview of what is occurring at various points during the video.
Original Submission
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday June 04 2015, @12:08AM
You really don't want to be sending F-16s up against modern enemy fighter or even ground-to-air technology...
There is one guy who will argue that point with you:
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-usafs-deadliest-f-16-viper-pilot-on-women-combat-1603954525 [jalopnik.com]
21 hard kills on surface-to-air missile sites...
In actual operations no MiGs would fight us....
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JeanCroix on Thursday June 04 2015, @12:13AM
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday June 04 2015, @12:30AM
Clearly they didn't face Russia's top pilots, but some of the planes they faced were much newer than his.
The 16 was a fighter, and (like the some of the 15s) was converted to the air-to-ground role, and excelled at it.
Note his only complaint about the 35 is the cost, he likes the plane.
Anyway, I bring this up, because the 16 was never intended to fly from carriers, and never did (not discounting the possibility of a stunt somewhere along the line). It was never designed as a bomber but ended up flying a huge percentage of the air to ground in Iraq.
Sure it changed over its life time, but the unit costs are still amazingly cheap. Same for F14 tomcats and F15s. The changed over time
but kept unit costs low by not trying to fill every imaginable role right out of the gate.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Thursday June 04 2015, @01:12AM
The decision to procure a multi-role aircraft was not mine, obviously, but one derived from the military and congress, in due respect. The companies I was and am employed by were/are contracted to fulfill that requirement, to the best of our ability and for the lowest cost. Personally, I may not professionally agree with such broad requirements, but no amount of feedback or pushback from me or my peers will be enough to sway what the military thinks it needs. So we strive to provide the best we can.
In terms of modern air warfare doctrine, its unfair to consider any one aircraft a "direct successor" to the F-16, F-15, or even A-10. Roles are constantly changing - some expanding, others diminishing. Some roles are creating themselves where none existed before - Predators and Avengers, for instance.
As a final note here, don't forget that unless you have a clearance and are in the industry, you really only have a partial view of the iceberg that is modern air warfare. No offense intended, but your opinions can only be based on what's publicly acknowledged, and not the full range of knowledge and technology we're working with. Watch the History channel in 20 years and it might tell you then what we were developing now.
(Score: 2, Touché) by FunkyLich on Thursday June 04 2015, @03:35PM
Does the same principle of "your opinions can only be based on what's publicly acknowledged, and not the full range of knowledge and technology we're working with" hold true if we replace the variable "F-35B" with "Su-35S" or "PAK FA T-50" ?