F-35B Declared Operational. Are you relieved?

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:35:46 -0400

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

Looks like the F-35 has finally made it to some form of operational status. It is still missing a large chunk of its promised capability (which will be available in ~2 years) but what do you think about having reached this milestone?

Marines Declare F-35B Operational

The F-35B has been declared operational, the Marine Corps announced Friday.

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Jul 31 at 2015 1:41 PM

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:41:58 -0400

ROFLMAO!!!
I guess I should add that I'm a former A-10 A Crew Chief! :)

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Jul 31 at 2015 1:52 PM

Capt Walter Miller — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:52:46 -0400

If I said what I think about the F-35 I would sure as little green apples get relieved.

Walt

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jul 31 at 2015 2:00 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:00:13 -0400

"Operational" is very mission specific. When we're talking about using it as a Recon asset, it may be Operational. If we're talking about CAS, that is another story. Keep in mind, the (current) USMC mission specs are completely different than the USAF or USN mission specs.

Although my gut reaction was very similar to that of our USAF brethren MSgt Mike Mikulski & MSgt Curtis Ellis, I had to rethink it from Gen Dunford's perspective. The bird is very likely doing what is is "supposed" to do, within the confines of the contract. That doesn't mean what we "want" it to do, or what we are replacing (the A10) does.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jul 31 at 2015 2:26 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:26:54 -0400

I am concerned about it's inability to win a dog fight against older fighters. I would imagine potential enemies might want to exploit that weakness.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Jul 31 at 2015 2:46 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:46:20 -0400

Hopefully it is safer than the Osprey was when it first was declared operational.

Response by SGT(P) Landon Mintz made Jul 31 at 2015 3:53 PM

SGT(P) Landon Mintz — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 15:53:24 -0400

I believe it's a good this to finally see the F-35 going operational. It should be an interesting time for the program seeing a number of the aircraft in battle scenarios and day to day operation. It will however find the bugs that the crews and pilots seem to find, look forward to periods of the aircraft being downed for maintenance related investigation but it should help progress the development of the other F-35 variants. The Marines deserve a technologically advanced replacement for the Harrier with all the capabilities to ensure adequate and reliable reinforcement to the guys on the ground. I say congrats and good luck!

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Jul 31 at 2015 6:57 PM

Capt Jeff S. — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 18:57:15 -0400

Waste of money. It doesn't perform as well as other airframes. Am skeptical that its promised capability will be delivered in 2 years.

Response by Sgt Ken Prescott made Jul 31 at 2015 9:55 PM

Sgt Ken Prescott — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 21:55:27 -0400

Having been there and done that in the CH-53E program, I'd describe this as typical for a new aircraft. I am a plank owner in HMH-466, and we were the first squadron to really use the aircraft to its stated capabilities--464 and 465 had the misfortune of having to find most of the problems with the airframe (and there were many of them). The CH-53E took most of a decade to really come into its own.

Part of the F-35's problem is the lead letter: "F." It was never really intended to be a fighter in the way the F-22 is. It is supposed to be an attack airframe, but the USAF has a HUGE problem with the "A" designator. Note that the F-105, F-111, and F-117 were intended for the strike mission, and were never intended to be fighters, so they hung "F" on it and ended up mismanaging the expectations.

121 has a very good heritage, and I'm pretty sure they'll do their best to live up to it.

Response by Sgt Joseph Brent Montgomery made Jul 31 at 2015 10:08 PM

Sgt Joseph Brent Montgomery — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 22:08:55 -0400

Aviation Marines always getting it done, Oorah!

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Aug 1 at 2015 3:00 PM

Capt Jeff S. — Sat, 01 Aug 2015 15:00:58 -0400

This is what the Brits have to say about it:

Marines say F-35B that can't fire its own weapons ready for service

The declaration means that the squadron of 10 F-35Bs stationed with Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 in Yuma, Ariz., are 'ready for worldwide deployment,' the Marine Corps said in a statement.

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Aug 1 at 2015 3:24 PM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Sat, 01 Aug 2015 15:24:44 -0400

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member I literally lol when I read the article. From everything I have read that airframe is not combat ready by a long shot. IMO people are trying to say it is to cover their asses. Now the F-22 is combat ready and IMO we should have built a bunch more. Yes it costs more but we could have kept on building them instead of throwing away billions of dollars on the cost over runs on the F-35. People are just building their portfolio for when they get out.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Aug 2 at 2015 7:32 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Sun, 02 Aug 2015 19:32:50 -0400

Norway shocked!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2015 6:34 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:34:14 -0400

Premature in all respects...

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Aug 10 at 2015 6:39 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:39:57 -0400

I am concerned about its lack of close air to air prowess. We predicate our offense and defense on air superiority.