It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

F-35A could see combat deployment by year end

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 08:01 AM
link   
General Hawk Carlisle, commander of the Air Force Air Combat Command has publicly stated that the minute IOC is declared for the F-35A, if the need is there, he will deploy F-35s to the Middle East to fly combat missions against Isis.

Previously it was stated that they could see combat by 2018. Gen Carlisle also stated that he plans no notice deployments to both Europe and Asia for units within the next 12 months. He is expecting to declare IOC closer to August, but has from August until December to declare IOC to remain on the current schedule for the aircraft.

www.bloomberg.com...




posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Are the support lines and training in place to suddenly start using f35's in actual warfare?



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Maxatoria

Part of the IOC process is to have the support base established. As for training, yes. They currently only have the one combat Squadron stood up, Luke is training a lot of crews, including weapons release.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

And Mo will fly again with VFA-101, the return of the Grim Reapers.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: cosmania

Nice!



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

$100 Million a copy? Really?

So........the US is going to send aircraft costing $100 Million to bomb a desert junkyard to kill flag waving, AK-47 bearing nut jobs.

This sounds like how mighty nations go dead broke quick fighting stone age guerillas in a vast wasteland.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

How much do you think existing aircraft cost if you adjust for inflation? And many of them cost a lot more per hour to operate.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Zaphod58

$100 Million a copy? Really?

So........the US is going to send aircraft costing $100 Million to bomb a desert junkyard to kill flag waving, AK-47 bearing nut jobs.


No, not really. The US is going to send aircraft costing $100 million to train pilots and support aircraft in advanced high-information density air to ground warfare and information & communication technology in a realistic environment.

And to scoop up Russian electronic signals and also demonstrate a bit of that old-fashioned 'deterrence' business. The Russians have been smarting from some losses against Daesh and other jihadi MANPADs. Doing the same attack runs with more efficiency and success right while they're watching may be instructive.

A few nutjobs might be harmed in the making of this training exercise.



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

In Soviet Russia, wars train for you.

(rephrasing a recent press conference by Putin into the tired joke format)



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Couldn't the A-10 do just as well?
It can't possibly cost as much per hour to fly.
You've probably seen this:
At an “Ownership” cost per flying hour (CPFH) of $19,736, the A-10 is the cheapest in the inventory of aircraft the Air Force asserts is capable of close air support. All other aircraft, including the most prevalent version of the ground attack-capable C-130, are almost twice or more to operate-except for the F-16C/D, which at $22,954 is only slightly higher than the A-10. A-10 operating costs have been just above or just below their 2013 level for years, making the statement “age is also making it much more difficult and costly to maintain” nonsense. Note the extraordinary costs to operate stealth aircraft. The F-22 costs $68,262 for every hour of flight, and it has cost close to or above that level for every year of its operational existence. 2013 is no outlier. Note also the astronomical cost to operate the B-2A: $152,871 for each hour of flight. However, it is lunatic to think that the Air Force would be willing to consider trading in either of those aircraft to preserve the A-10.

www.counterpunch.org...



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Is is actually ready?

I thought it was the better part of a year or so away?

That generals name is actually "Hawk"?
I can't begin to imagine what his call sign is...



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

You can't keep throwing A-10s at the mission. Aircraft, like people, require down time periodically. Sooner or later, you end up like the B-1, where the entire fleet gets grounded for required upgrades and maintenance.

The F-35 costs about $44,000/hr and is dropping.
F-15 - $42,000 /hr
B-52 - $70,000 /hr
B-1 - $58,000 /hr

All four of those are used for the Close Air Support mission.



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

It's over a year out if they want to wait for the next round of software. Once it passes IOC, then it's cleared for combat operations.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   

a reply to: Zaphod58

The F-35 costs about $44,000/hr and is dropping.
F-15 - $42,000 /hr
B-52 - $70,000 /hr
B-1 - $58,000 /hr

All four of those are used for the Close Air Support mission.


Shouldn't the metric be $ per target attacked successfully? Looks like B-1B could win on that for some kinds of attacks.


edit on 18-7-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-7-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

The b-1 can stay on station and deliver more weapons but it also needs more down time. With f-35 stationed closer they should be able to zip in and out of closer bases and get dirtier without the need to worry about being downed over Daesh territory.




top topics



 
3

log in

join