Bullet

The better question would be: "do the Marines need an VSTOL aircraft that is also LO? Are they really going to deploy their aircraft in a forward location where the airspace is contested or denied?"

1) The initial cadre of IPs will complete flight training early next year, and the second cadre (IPs and OT pilots) will be right after them. In fact, all of next year will be getting the IP and OT guys trained. Ops guys will probably start (in very small numbers) '13. 2) Very experienced, hand-picked guys at first. Patch, IP, Test quals are probably you're best bet at getting slot in the near term (in fact, I believe the second cadre announcement has been out for a while, and listed these as "desired Quals") 3)Viper heavy, but there are also Mud-Hen and A-10 guys in the mix. It's the next "strike fighter", so I'm pretty sure they want guys with air-to-ground backgrounds at first. However, you may see the occasional -22 guy because of their stealth experience. 4)Last piece of advise: nothing is certain in this program next month, never mind next year! Advice I've been passing to young dudes going to UPT now (or looking down the road 1-2 years) and wanting to fly a F-35: shoot for a Viper assignment as your first Ops tour. Once (if ever) this program is on-track, the switch from Vipers to Lightning IIs will be fast and furious, and the Vipers are replaced first; you're chances of transferring over will be that much greater.

One can only hope that someone in the rank of O-6 or above leading the troops downrange has read this article and is using it as an example of what IS important to the mission and what ISN'T. An example of setting priorities in a combat zone and how to act, versus focusing on the queep and how NOT to act. One can only hope that while this Senior Airman gets his rightfully deserved reward and recognition for his actions that day, the Sgt 1st Class in question has been pulled aside and counseled on his inappropriate mission focus. Better yet, he's pulled into a meeting with the rest of the Senior NCOs and is put down a peg or two in front of his peers, in the hopes that the lesson sinks home in ALL of them. But then again, hope is not a course of action....

That's most likely because he asked his staff to "get back to me on this with an answer", and they, being the good staff officers they are, are busy working on a "Climate Survey" and the PowerPoint briefing shell where they explain in the BLUF slide the Regional Executive Fully Logical Explanatory Composite Threshold of Instant Value-added E-metrics Baseline Equivalency for Low Tolerance score, with follow-on slides that demonstrate the metrics they used to measure "dissatisfaction". The eSSS will be staffed over the next 3 weeks, which will allow for every O-6 on his staff to have a chance to ensure thier happy-to-glads are fully adjudicated in the final product. Just saying....

It was AF-7. AF-6 should also get delivered to Edwards in the next couple of weeks. AF-8 just had it's 1st flight last week, and should get to Eglin in a few weeks. AF-9 is about a month behind that...

Last Friday, with very little fan-fare, the AF's first production F-35A arrived at Edwards AFB. We should start seeing one or two delivered a month through the end of the year, even more after wards. One down, 1762 more go to (if anyone still believes that number).

Correction: were grounded. Flying has already resumed for most of the fleet since they have different generators than the ones they're investigating. It does, however, affect the first two production A models, delaying delivery a bit.

It simply means that the test delays announced earlier this year mean that it the Initial Ops Testing won't be done in time to meet the current schedule, which was announced last year as 2016. More importantly, it means the AF is publicly stating that we won't settle for anything less than what we said we needed this jet to have when test is done. I really don't think the AF wants to go down the F-22 route again, declaring mission ready without some very important capabilities (like a JHMCS)only because folks in Congress pressured us to "finally get it finished". We're still playing catch-up with the Raptor because of it. So, good on Lt Gen Shackleford for sticking to his guns on this one (sts). BTW, the AF should be accepting their first two F-35As within a couple of weeks; going to Edwards. Should get six more to Eglin by the end of the summer.

The key to keeping expenses down is to use real bullets, so you don't have to pay all those "extras".

Why is there even an investigation into his sexual orientation? He violated the "Don't tell" portion of DADT when the first part of his excuse was "I was watching the Vampire Diaries".

Flying Strike Eagles out of Elmendorf in the mid-90s, had to divert our 4-ship to Eielson. Not much to do in Fairbanks, so we decide to contact the Survival School cadre and see if they can take us out into the field to "check up" on one of the bros going through Artic Survival at the time (they LOVED the RMO-check idea we had!) Drive out to the range, pitch black dark outside. Get to his hold-up spot, and find his snow cave. Based on our own experience, we know he must be zonked out for the past 3 hours. So, we take out our RMOs and start the "tap, tap, tap" around this pile of branches fully covered in snow. Though the middleof this snow pack, out pops this arm, with the Squadron's RMO proudly clutched in a frozen hand. About the only thing you can do there is say, "Well played, sir. Well played." (and buy him a beer when he gets back to civilization). Wonder if our Congressmen would do that?

Perhaps President O. was referring to their body odor when he called them our strongest allies?

Honestly, I'd cut the guy some slack. With names like: Victim: Tzajgauchiac, Vehicle Operator: Quagliariello, he probably was stuck for the 4 hours it took him to get his brother to the police station just figuring out how to fill out the accident report.

Texican, requirements creep is not the case here. Actually the opposite happened, about 5 years ago, when the F-35's capabilities at IOC were reduced and the aircraft had to go through a MAJOR re-design because it was too heavy for STOVL. In fact, having to design and produce three variants is the primary contributor to why design and production are behind and over-cost. Guess we didn't learn from the F-111 program; making something that fits everyone's needs (and those needs are HUGELY different) means you end of with something that is behind, over-priced, and is so full of compromise that it hurts capability.

Wide open air spaces. Few, if any, residents ready to call their congressman directly every time a plane flies within a 10 mile radius of their mobile home. Saylor Creek Bombing Range right next door, the UTTR not too far away either... Makes perfect sense to station them there. But some blowhard Congressman with more political clout will probably get them stationed in some corner of Pennsylvania first. And he'll cost the US taxpayer only $250 million to get the extension to the runway named after him to do it...

The issue is the leadership for each (Mx, Ops, and the Wing King themselves) are measured by different grade sheets. If you're in charge and out for looking good on paper (which 90% + of today's leaders are), then you test to your grade sheet. Thus, Mx/CC focuses on sortie generation rates, OPs on RAP requirements, and the Wg/CC on meeting UTE rates / C-1 status for the squadrons. Naturally, this creates a system where the three key areas are at odds with one another, and resentment all around. Of course, how successful a Wing is should be measured on the only true grade sheet: mission accomplishment; bombs on target. Tough to measure that back home, though.

The last round of BRAC decisions dictated the selection of Eglin for a Joint F-35 Training Center. Construction of the required facilities (hangars, sims, Ops buildings, etc.) will start almost immediately now that the decision has been officially released. The first few jests start arriving next year for the initial cadre to train on. I think the Mar 2011 quote was a mis-print or mis-quote from the media (figure the odds of that!)