First female USAF pilot to fly F-35A into combat is deployed. Call sign 'Banzai.' Uh oh, is that cultural appropriation?

Quote:Although she initially wanted to be an engineer, once she got the chance to fly a plane instead of just repair it, she changed course. She trained on F-16 Fighting Falcons during her college training, then flew F-16s for a year and a half before transferring to the F-35A model.

Thompson acknowledged that other women had preceded her in other sorties and planes, but she was honored to be the first in the stealth fighter.

US Air Force pilot call sign 'Banzai' becomes first woman to fly F-35A stealth fighter into combat

Thankfully she looks less like a Dude than Amy McGrath that’s running against Mitch McConnell for his Senate seat here in Kentucky.

Into combat? With whom are we at war?

Probably East Asia. Haven't we always been at war with them?

Headline writer got too caught up in things. She didn't realize that this pilot was just deployed, not yet going into combat.

(06-13-2020 07:18 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  First female USAF pilot to fly F-35A into combat is deployed. Call sign 'Banzai.' Uh oh, is that cultural appropriation?

Quote:Although she initially wanted to be an engineer, once she got the chance to fly a plane instead of just repair it, she changed course. She trained on F-16 Fighting Falcons during her college training, then flew F-16s for a year and a half before transferring to the F-35A model.

Thompson acknowledged that other women had preceded her in other sorties and planes, but she was honored to be the first in the stealth fighter.

US Air Force pilot call sign 'Banzai' becomes first woman to fly F-35A stealth fighter into combat

Don’t let this insignificant moment distract you from the fact that the F35 is a $1T boondoggle for LM that can’t do its job

(06-13-2020 07:53 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Into combat? With whom are we at war?

Korea.

(06-13-2020 10:51 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(06-13-2020 07:53 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Into combat? With whom are we at war?

Korea.

Now that's some stealthy shite right there. First female combat pilot of the Korean War

Well by god. Equality.

(06-13-2020 07:53 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Into combat? With whom are we at war?

Thats what I was thinking. Perhaps she did low level recon over Minneapolis or CHAZ.

(06-13-2020 08:35 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Don’t let this insignificant moment distract you from the fact that the F35 is a $1T boondoggle for LM that can’t do its job

The opinions herein are those of the author, and do not reflect official views of the Department of Defense.

I wouldn't call it insignificant, there's some significance to it. I really liked the poster/meme, with three women pilots walking down the flight line in flight suits, and the captain something like, "Hey. al-Qaeda, our women bomb you and blow you up. What do your women do?"

The problem is that we needed three different aircraft and tried to make one do all three, so it does none of them well. Making it a multinational project probably didn't help, but the muti-role problem was really bigger that the multi-national problem. It's the McNamara TFX problem all over again. From the Navy perspective we needed:

- An interceptor/fighter with long-range sensors and weapons, to see and kill they bad guys before the bad guys kill them, plus maneuverability and visibility in case it got caught in a dogfight
- An attack aircraft with stealth, long legs, and the ability to carry a big bomb load
- For the Marines, a close-air support (CAS) aircraft (a "Marine A-10") that could go ashore with them, operate off short or unprepared airstrips, and carry a big bomb load

The F-35 has the stealth, which is really only needed in the long-range attack mode, and the short takeoff and landing, which is really only needed in the Marine role. But it doesn't have the maneuverability and visibility you want in the fighter, or the long legs and bomb load that you want in the attack plane, or the bomb load that you want in the CAS airplane. It's probably better suited for the Marine role than the other two, but it's too high-maintenance for any of them.

I can't really speak to Air Force needs, but since they have long-range bombers, the fighter/interceptor role is probably most important to them. They could use a good CAS airplane, but they don't think that mission is sexy enough for them, and actually tried to get rid of the A-10s. If I had been running the DOD, I would have told them fine, give them to the Army (who really does value the CAS mission highly) and that would have put a quick stop to it.

Either the F/A-18 or F-16 or something like the French Mirage or a navalized Eurofighter Typhoon is probably better in the interceptor/fighter role. There really is no good airplane for the attack role, which is where new development is clearly needed. The old AV-8 Harrier (considered to be the second-best CAS plane after the A-10) or a navalized version of the SAAB Gripen is probably as good as the F-35 in the CAS role, for 1/3 to 1/4 the money.

Right now it is as you describe, an expensive, over-priced boondoggle.

(06-14-2020 09:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-13-2020 08:35 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Don’t let this insignificant moment distract you from the fact that the F35 is a $1T boondoggle for LM that can’t do its job

The opinions herein are those of the author, and do not reflect official views of the Department of Defense.

I wouldn't call it insignificant, there's some significance to it. I really liked the poster/meme, with three women pilots walking down the flight line in flight suits, and the captain something like, "Hey. al-Qaeda, our women bomb you and blow you up. What do your women do?"

The problem is that we needed three different aircraft and tried to make one do all three, so it does none of them well. Making it a multinational project probably didn't help, but the muti-role problem was really bigger that the multi-national problem. It's the McNamara TFX problem all over again. From the Navy perspective we needed:

- An interceptor/fighter with long-range sensors and weapons, to see and kill they bad guys before the bad guys kill them, plus maneuverability and visibility in case it got caught in a dogfight
- An attack aircraft with stealth, long legs, and the ability to carry a big bomb load
- For the Marines, a close-air support (CAS) aircraft (a "Marine A-10") that could go ashore with them, operate off short or unprepared airstrips, and carry a big bomb load

The F-35 has the stealth, which is really only needed in the long-range attack mode, and the short takeoff and landing, which is really only needed in the Marine role. But it doesn't have the maneuverability and visibility you want in the fighter, or the long legs and bomb load that you want in the attack plane, or the bomb load that you want in the CAS airplane. It's probably better suited for the Marine role than the other two, but it's too high-maintenance for any of them.

I can't really speak to Air Force needs, but since they have long-range bombers, the fighter/interceptor role is probably most important to them. They could use a good CAS airplane, but they don't think that mission is sexy enough for them, and actually tried to get rid of the A-10s. If I had been running the DOD, I would have told them fine, give them to the Army (who really does value the CAS mission highly) and that would have put a quick stop to it.

Either the F/A-18 or F-16 or something like the French Mirage or a navalized Eurofighter Typhoon is probably better in the interceptor/fighter role. There really is no good airplane for the attack role, which is where new development is clearly needed. The old AV-8 Harrier (considered to be the second-best CAS plane after the A-10) or a navalized version of the SAAB Gripen is probably as good as the F-35 in the CAS role, for 1/3 to 1/4 the money.

Right now it is as you describe, an expensive, over-priced boondoggle.

That chicks can fly too. Yay! I guess
.