Follow the latest on RallyPoint. Get insights from the top online professional network for service members and veterans.

Most recent discussions

8
8
0
D29f9f80
What is your take on this reenactment of the flag raising on Mt. Suribachi by gays celebrating the Supreme Courts ruling on gay marriage? Do you think it was in good taste for the gay community to do this, or should they have refrained and found another way to celebrate it?
Posted in these groups: 6262122778_997339a086_z PoliticsLgbt_rainbow_flag_sticker-p217743526429646007envb3_400 LGBT
55 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
49
40
9
8757d40d
I see this as a test bed violating and overruling states rights by way of a popular social issue that only affects a small percentage. It sets bad precedent for not just overreach of the federal government but also to other issues that will continue the decay of American society. I don't think it as severe as leading to civil war but it will pit marriage law against freedom of religion and open the door for wide scale fraud for benefits.


http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/why-the-supreme-court-ruling-on-gay-marriage-could-lead-to-civil-war/
202 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
2
2
0
http://duffelblog.com/r2R1u

A Seaman is separating from the Navy early to use his Post 9/11 GI Bill to pursue an online poetry degree, and has only 3 ribbons: Good Conduct, National Defense, and GWOT Service Medal. What a loser!!!

Sound off! By the way, this is the Duffel Blog!
Posted in these groups: 1024px-smiley.svg HumorNavy Navy
2 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
10
10
0
Posted in these groups: 9317c1b7 Sarasota
4 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
6
6
0
A3b300bc
There was Elvis, of course. But I believe Major General Jimmy Stewart is the most famous US celebrity to have served in the military. He ended his career in the US Air Force Reserve. Who would you say is the most famous celebrity to have served?
Posted in these groups: Fame CelebritiesImovie_icon-625x1000 HollywoodVet Veterans
12 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
18
18
0
736422df
Free Speech.

We all have it, but do we sometimes go too far?

"... this incident in the community prompted many Martinsville residents to gather in front of the school during the week of May 18 to demonstrate in support of respecting the flag."

"An Illinois school board reportedly fired the teacher who stepped on an American flag in class on May 15 at a local high school."

He was teaching "free speech" in his English class and used the American flag as a pointer. Once he was called out by a student who said it was disrespectful, the teacher said "he then made what he says was the rash decision of dropping the flag to the floor and stepping on it to illustrate an example of free speech as part of the lesson that day."

"Parmenter said he realized immediately that he had exercised bad judgment when he saw how upset many of his students were about this action. Parmenter said he apologized to the class and subsequently submitted an apology letter to the school board."

"I made a spur of the moment decision which I know was a terrible error in judgment. I believe that ideas such as the nature of symbolism and freedom of expression are valuable topics to discuss in the classroom and that surprise can be a useful tool to use when engaging students, however in this instance I chose a very poor way of addressing this subject," Parmenter wrote.

"What I did was never intended as a show of disrespect to our country, to our veterans, or to anyone, nor would I ever do or say anything with that intention. I love my country and have nothing but the utmost respect for those who serve it."


If anything, he should have shown that flag and explained that it's THAT FLAG that symbolizes our Country and the Military that have fought for or are fighting for is the very FLAG that enables them to have the Free Speech he so disrespectfully displayed. Disgusting. I really believe his anger got the best of him.

Is this a lesson learned or did the school board go too far?

KUDDOS TO THE KIDDO THAT BUSTED HIM OUT!!

A MORE "INDEPTH" STORY!
( http://jg-tc.com/news/teacher-who-stepped-on-flag-awaits-school-board-action/article_e2d56202-edf5-5ee6-b0cb-ab28d3c973ac.html )



http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/01/illinois-teacher-fired-from-school-after-stepping-on-american-flag-in-class/

COL Charles Williams TSgt Hunter Logan CMSgt (Join to see) PV2 (Join to see) SSG (Join to see) SSG (Join to see) SFC Mark Merino MAJ (Join to see) SGT (Join to see) SGT Jeremiah B.
Posted in these groups: Freedom-of-speech_logo Freedom of SpeechFlag Flag
62 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
2
2
0
Finally got our orders today during AIT. 19 of us are going to the same company. But our PSG said he's never heard of this company. I can't find anything on google about it either. Any help?
11 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
3
3
0
If you could vote for anyone to win the 2016 presidential election, who would it be and why? Who would you like to see make a run if they are not doing so already?

Would it be Allan West? Mike Huckabee? Jen Bush? Gary Johnson, or dare I say Hillary Clinton.

It disclaimer is that I want this to be a mature and legitimate conversation. I enjoy hearing other people's views and experiences. Like mama used to say "if you don't have anything nice to say about someone, don't say anything"

What have you RP? Sound off!
47 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
0
0
0
19593c57
FAYETTEVILLE (WTVD) --

The Fayetteville Police Department has charged an Army soldier after getting multiple reports of an armed gunman at Cross Creek Mall Thursday evening.

A huge number of law enforcement officers flooded the mall located off the All American Expressway when 911 calls started coming in just before 6:30 p.m.

Photos showed several stores with security gates pulled down. Some store employees locked themselves inside businesses until officers told them it was safe to come out.

Eyewitnesses said it was a moment of sheer terror.

"They were, very panicked, actually a lot of kids were crying," said eyewitness Francheska Penn. "They did not understand why adults were running - kind of a scary thing. Everyone just dove in sheer panic. They did not understand what was going on."

On surveillance video, the man wearing a military vest and carrying an assault rifle was seen walking into and out of the mall entrance. Police said he was arrested outside the building near the Macy's wing of the mall.

"Within two minutes, we had officers on the scene. The first two responding officers made contact, gave him a verbal command, [and the] subject complied and they took him into custody," said Fayetteville Assistant Police Chief Anthony Kelly.

Police have now charged 25-year-old Bryan Scott Wolfinger with "going armed to the terror of the public."

They said he was wearing a military ballistic panel carrier and carrying an AR-15 rifle along with multiple high-capacity rifle ammunition magazines.

"We got here within two minutes," said Kelly. "We got to the scene. We secured the scene. Most importantly, we secured citizens shopping when we closed down the mall, and they handled it very well."

Police said Wolfinger apparently came to the mall with the intention of getting his picture taken with the military gear - something police called a "poor decision."

Law enforcement across the country is on high alert this holiday weekend for possible terrorism.

Wolfinger was processed at the Cumberland County Detention Center and later released to his company commander and Provost Marshal at Fort Bragg.
9 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
2
2
0
7844d9f9
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Posted in these groups: 4th-of-july_logo 4th of JulyAmerican_history_logo American History
1 person commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
6
6
0
There is an air in the National Guard younger soldiers that I have noticed that they think that they DESERVE better than their superiors. They think because that they are younger and have been to basic that they are OWED things.

This is my basis. There was a newly promoted Specialist that was in a room of 8 bunks. 3 top, and 5 bottom bunks. Their was 3 Sergeants and 5 Specialists. The sergeant comes into the room and requests that one of the 4 Specialists need to move and give up the bottom bunk. The sergeant has 14 years of service and is 45 years old. He has not only put in his dues but also has the rank and the time in service over the other Sergeants and the Specialists. There was 3 requests and then told to move to a top bunk. the other Sergeants would not help the other sergeant in the validity of the request and there had to be a Staff Sergeant involved in the decision making process. The Specialist the had an issue with being told to move but eventually moved.

What is the view of the members of this great site of the mentioned situation, and how would you have handle such a situation.
Posted in these groups: 95567026 NCO CreedZgvwznrr9psdw5lzq6y7ihp6r9qhpdfhlbomkkkntap1slsxqwsblel-onis9qdww00l_q_s85 DisrespectLeadership-abstract-007 Leadership
56 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
1
1
0
Not too long ago, a discussion was started proposing that all edits maintain the original content so edits don't change the initial nature of a comment that was then responded to.

If rallypoint makes that change then this topic will be moot, however, until/unless that happens, should we as a community start annotating why we edit a comment or post?

I.e.

"Blah blah Blah Blah Bobloblaw"
Edit: Grammar/Spelling
5 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
3
3
0
Can you name a person or thing that has had a tremendous impact on you as a leader? I was inspired to become a leader in the Navy from LCDR Dennis Morek USN Retiree. Maybe you were inspired to become what you are today, because that some one has been a mentor to you? Why and how did this person impact your life? Don't forget about your inspirations that drives you to be awesome.
Posted in these groups: Inspiration_logo InspirationLeadership-abstract-007 Leadership
3 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
25
24
1
E79b39f2
From: Politico.com
--
Army Specialist Laura Naylor, a Wisconsin native, spent a year in Baghdad with the 32nd Military Police Company in 2003 and 2004. During that time, she—like all of the more than quarter-million women deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan—was officially banned from ground combat. That technicality didn’t slow down Naylor when an IED hit her convoy and it began to take fire from a nearby building. “We had to search this house nearby, thinking they were the ones doing the shooting, and I was the lead person the whole way. I had a flashlight in one hand, a pistol in the other, and I’d kick the door open with my foot, look both ways, give the all clear, go to the next room, do the same thing,” she recounted to me a few years later. “We were interchangeable with the infantry.”
A friend in her unit, Specialist Caryle Garcia, was wounded when a roadside bomb went off beside her Humvee. Garcia was her team’s gunner, her body exposed from the chest up above the Humvee’s roof. Their close friend, 20-year-old Specialist Michelle Witmer, became the first National Guardswoman ever killed in action after being shot during another ambush. Witmer’s death was a grim marker in a steady march that has seen one woman after another achieve milestones in military service since the September 11, 2001, attacks that would have been unimaginable just a generation ago. During the Vietnam War, female soldiers were not even allowed to carry guns.
In early 2013, outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, with the backing of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, finally lifted the ban on women serving in ground combat, belatedly admitting they had already been doing so. “Women have shown great courage and sacrifice on and off the battlefield,” he said, “and proven their ability to serve in an expanding number of roles.” President Barack Obama heralded the move, which remains politically controversial on Capitol Hill, saying, “Valor knows no gender.” Since Panetta’s decree, the debate has centered on whether, now that women can serve in previously all-male combat units, they have the ability to actually do it. The Marine Corps, Army and Special Forces have all been busily, and publicly, putting women to the test, running them through training courses and assessments, and announcing gravely how many have passed or failed.
Yet to many female soldiers and the men who have witnessed their competence in battle over the past 13-plus years, this debate seems like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted—ignoring that the distinction between “rear echelon” and “front line” in these wars is obsolete. Of the roughly 300,000 American women who have deployed to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars since 2001, at least 800 have been wounded, and, as of last count, at least 144 have been killed. Two women have earned Silver Stars, the military’s third-highest award.
For generations now, the debate over women in combat has put the onus on women to prove they can handle the infantry and other traditionally all-male units. Yet today’s wars have made it clear that the military’s problem lies not with its women, their ability or their courage. The military’s problem, instead, is with some of its men—and a deeply ingrained macho culture that denigrates, insults and abuses women.
***
In eight years of covering women at war, I have noticed a pattern in attitudes toward women in the military: The men who have served with women are more than satisfied with their work, while the men who are most resistant to serving alongside women have never done it.

“Oh, it’s too rough for women,” such men tend to say. Others complain, “Women would ruin our camaraderie” or “We’d be competing for women instead of looking out for ourselves.” As retired Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, a former Army chief of staff, wrote, lifting the combat ban against women would be “confusing” and “detrimental to units.”
These attitudes reveal deeply patriarchal, condescending and creaky stereotypes about women, as if they are capable of being nothing more than soft, sexy objects of romance—or sexual prey.

Some of the very same types of prejudiced objections were once raised against black and gay men entering the military, even though they had demonstrated their military prowess long before they were openly welcomed into the ranks. As former chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. John Shalikashvili wrote in 2007, many within the military were originally concerned that “letting people who were openly gay serve would lower morale, harm recruitment and undermine unit cohesion.”
And yet, even after President Harry Truman forced the racial integration of the military in 1948 and even after the fall of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in 2011, the military is still standing. And nobody questions any longer whether black or gay people can serve as well as straight white men.
Canada, Denmark and Norway have allowed women to serve in combat since the 1980s. Canadian commanders found no “negative effect on operational performance or team cohesion,” according to one report; neither did military leaders in Norway. Israel, which added women to combat units years ago, has found that they “exhibit superior skills” in discipline, shooting and weapons use.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/women-in-combat-119118.html#ixzz3eCaHn9NH
Posted in these groups: Images Women in the MilitaryGender_differences_male_female Gender
107 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
0
0
0
In just a couple of days our great nation will celebrate it's Independence Day. Happy Birthday America!! It's been a long and winding road, but here we are. Please share your favorite patriotic trivia. I'll start:

My favorite song is the Star Spangled Banner. For real, more than any other song. Most poeple can sing it by heart, but did you know that there is more than one verse? There are actually four verses to the Star Spangled Banner, and I just can't make it through verse two without getting misty. Yeah, that's right, and I don't care.

Your turn.
Posted in these groups: Patriotism_logo PatriotismImgres Constitution
3 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
2
2
0
Last AT, we had this brand new Private joining our Battery. We had this problem with his MOS being phased out. So our 1sgt placed him with diffrent sections. From rader, to the gun line, then to my section. Supply. My battle buddy from rader told me he was a Charlie Foxtrot and explained to me that this private is always on his doggone phone. I found out this to be true when I gave him a lesson on tearing down Mk. 19, M2, M9, and even PMCS the LMTV. Every step I explained, I would look at him to make sure he understand. Instead he is texting this girl just so he can have a one night thing. My enacting supply sergeant even caught him walking with his phone and gave him a talk. What power am I allowed to utilize to fix this situation without escalating this to the next level? I tried calmly talking to him saying "if you want to stay off the shit detail then stay off the phone" but he told me to mind my own business. Am I allowed to tear him to pieces or is that a NCO thing only? How about a consoling statement? Can I make him push or do I need to get down with him like my buddies keep telling me?
18 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
3
3
0
Article:

WASHINGTON: Do dogfights matter in the age of tactical stealth? If an F-16 can outmaneuver an F-35 in a dogfight, does it matter? Does it matter if the earliest generation F-35 can’t outmaneuver an advanced model of the F-16 in an early test?

So many questions. We’ll try to answer them because the folks at War Is Boring got their hands on a hot document — an F-35 pilot’s evaluation of an early test of the F-35 against the F-16. Colleague David Axe got the scoop. Basically, the F-35 test pilot said the F-16 could outmanuever the F-35 in most cases during a close engagement, or what most people would call a dogfight.

Here’s where we get to the really complicated bit. Does it matter? Well, of course it matters if the F-35 pilot is in a dogfight and loses. But if you talk with Air Force and Marine pilots who’ve flown the Harrier, the F-18 and the F-16, every one of them I’ve talked with says the F-35 is a superior aircraft. They’ve said it on the USS Wasp. They’ve said it on the USS Enterprise and they’ve said it in the halls of the Pentagon and at Fort Worth, where the F-35 and the F-16 are made.

Why do they say this if an F-35 carrying no external weapons can’t out perform an F-16D loaded with heavy fuel pylons? You might well ask. Basically, it’s because the F-35’s stealth and sensors allow it to spot enemy aircraft long before they are spotted. The result? The F-35 gets a weapon lock and kills the enemy before the enemy knows the F-35 is there.

Few senior officials or pilots have spoken on the record about the F-35 in terms of what it can actually do in combat, though at least a half-dozen pilots have said publicly they would not trade their F-35s for an F-18, Harrier or an F-16. In the only interview the Air Force has done about the F-35’s capabilities and the first 10 days of a full-scale war, retired Gen. Mike Hostage of Air Combat Command, told me this: “In the first moments of a conflict I’m not sending Growlers or F-16s or F-15Es anywhere close to that environment, so now I’m going to have to put my fifth gen [aircraft] in there and that’s where that radar cross-section and the exchange of the kill chain is so critical.”

At the same time, Hostage made it clear that the F-35 is not the plane to send in for hot dogfights. It is, instead, the first US aircraft built specifically for taking out advanced Integrated Air Defense Systems (IADS) such as the Russian S-300 and S-400. The plane that would lead the way to take out enemy fighters in close-up battles would be the F-22.

“The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth,” Hostage told me, “The F-35 is geared to go out and take down the surface targets.” In fact, it takes eight F-35s to do what two F-22s can accomplish in the early stages of a war.

The F-35’s radar cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war. For those who wonder about the worth of the opinion of a general sitting behind a desk, bear in mind that Hostage flew the F-22, as well as most models of the F-15 and the F-16.

F-22 and F-35

I spoke to another pilot who has closely watched the F-35s development and has extensive combat experience, Dave Deptula, who now heads the Air Force Associations’s Mitchell Institute. He’s also a member of the Breaking Defense Board of Contributors. Deptula flew the F-15 and twice led joint task forces, in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

His bottom line about what the test pilot said: It’s “interesting, but not relevant to the issue of campaign level utility of the other very significant advantages the F-35 possesses in the areas of low observability, sensor capability, and information integration that provide the F-35 an enormous advantage relative to legacy aircraft. If one can target and kill your adversaries prior to the merge, what they can do at the merge really doesn’t matter now, does it?”

He believes “the anti-F-35 crowd are so focused on how we fought in the last century with old equipment that they can’t conceive of, or understand the information edge advantage aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 provide.”

He even disdains the term “fighter” for the F-35 and F-22. “I’ve said for years and will continue to do so until the defense troglodytes finally get it (and some are slowly coming around)—5th generation aircraft are not ‘fighters’—they are ‘sensor-shooters’ optimized for different threat regimes, and can perform the roles of “F,” “B,” “A,” “RC,” “E,”EA,” and AWACS aircraft of the past.”

Deptula says that one F-35 “can create effects that require dozens of legacy aircraft, and in some cases dozens of legacy aircraft simply cannot accomplish with one or two ‘F’-22s or ‘F’-35s can accomplish.” Dogfighting isn’t the sine qua non of air combat, he argues. Killing the enemy before he knows you’re there is. “Bottom line—it’s about the information, stupid.”

The official version of those opinions was issued by the F-35’s Joint Program Office:

“The F-35’s technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual “dogfighting” situations. There have been numerous occasions where a four-ship of F-35s has engaged a four-ship of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios and the F-35s won each of those encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology.”

MGen Jeffrey L. Harrigian Bio PhotoAnd the JPO notes that this aircraft did not have the current mission systems software that allows it to spot enemies at a distance and was “not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.”

The official Air Force comment on the story from Maj. Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian, head of the Air Force’s F-35 Integration Office simply says: “It is too soon to draw any final conclusions on the maneuverability of the aircraft. The F-35 is designed to be comparable to current tactical fighters in terms of maneuverability, but the design is optimized for stealth. This will allow it to operate in threat environments where the F-16 could not survive.” Hostage said virtually the same thing about the F-16 and the F-35 in our interview last year. The reasonable conclusion of all this: the F-35 is not a top dogfighting aircraft because it wasn’t designed to be one. And it wasn’t designed to be one because it is better to kill the enemy from a distance before the enemy can target you.

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/f-16-vs-f-35-in-a-dogfight-jpo-air-force-weigh-in-on-whos-best
Posted in these groups: F35 F-35
4 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
Page_one_subheader

Our servicemembers and veterans value their privacy. Please confirm your service on the next page for free, permanent access to your military network.

Page_one_a_subheader
Page_two_subheader
Page_one_a_subheader