• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

F-35B/C Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter)

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
I didn't mean to imply the "seasoned transitions" would be guys of all the same experience year wise. They will definitely space it out. But like stated above, the majority will be senior captains and majors. I think it will be more like how politicians stagger their terms so that term conclusions are not all at once. Then eventually as new studs come out of advanced, they will start filling the ranks appropriately. How did the Osprey community do it? More or less similar set of circumstances with new technology and new staffing issues to solve.

Any way you slice it, there will be excess mid-grade officers, because those are the ones who initially staff the FRS and test-eval (not developmental test, but operational test). That can be mitigated to an acceptable level by two things. One, MMOA has to pick officers to staff those things who are junior enough, and at points in their careers, they don't get hosed by boards if they stay in the FRS/OT side. Two, the plane has to progress in a timely fashion through OT.

The Osprey program was, and to some extent is, manned with a lot of guys who, in retrospect, were too senior. Add that to some program delays, and you see a lot of guys with weird career progression that isn't the best either for them or the Corps.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
FWIW: Today even SecDef Robert Gates has acknowledged publicly that the Pentagon is considering a 2nd multi-year contract buy of Super Hornets both to replenish the Navy's "fighter shortfall" as well as to plug the gap in the anticipated late delivery of F-35Cs to the Navy. A buy of 124 to 150 a/c is being considered, and that number will include some Growlers in addition to the EF-18G numbers already contracted. I found this on Yahoo News under Boeing in the "Markets" section. Would post the article, but I always violate TOS & copyrights when I try - this is an age-related issue specific to techno-retards like myself.

Here it is, good find.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
FWIW: Today even SecDef Robert Gates has acknowledged publicly that the Pentagon is considering a 2nd multi-year contract buy of Super Hornets both to replenish the Navy's "fighter shortfall" as well as to plug the gap in the anticipated late delivery of F-35Cs to the Navy. A buy of 124 to 150 a/c is being considered, and that number will include some Growlers in addition to the EA-18G numbers already contracted. I found this on Yahoo News under Boeing in the "Markets" section. Would post the article, but I always violate TOS & copyrights when I try - this is an age-related issue specific to techno-retards like myself.

It's also affecting your ability to properly type the designations of Naval Aircraft. ;)

Brett
 

Fog

Old RIOs never die: They just can't fast-erect
None
Contributor
It's also affecting your ability to properly type the designations of Naval Aircraft. ;)

Brett[/QUOTE]
E,F,A WTF! Sheeee-it, I thought any 2 of the 3 would be good enough. I'm glad we have smart folks like you around to keep everyone straight,
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
It's also affecting your ability to properly type the designations of Naval Aircraft. ;)

Brett
E,F,A WTF! Sheeee-it, I thought any 2 of the 3 would be good enough. I'm glad we have smart folks like you around to keep everyone straight,

As well as proper use of the quote function. ;)

Brett
 

HeyJoe

Fly Navy! ...or USMC
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Speaking of VMFT-501

According to the FY '10 Marine Corps AVPlan, VMFAT-501 is suppose to produce 7 Cones (CAT 1's) in FY '13.

SF

MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, N.C. (March 26, 2010) - Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501 (VMFAT-501) will stand up as the Marine Corps' first F-35B Lightning II training squadron, April 2.

Media are invited to the reactivation ceremony of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 451 (VMFA-451) at the Naval Aviation Museum, Naval Air Station Pensacola, Fla, on Thursday, April 1 at 2 p.m.

Following a 13-year retirement, VMFA-451 will be reactivated in order to be re-designated as VMFAT-501 in a ceremony scheduled for Friday, Apr. 2 at 10 a.m., aboard Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., at the Joint Integrated Training Center. Media are invited to attend this event as well.

Interested media should contact Major Aisha Bakkar or Mike Barton at (252) 466-4241, or e-mail aisha.bakkar@usmc.mil by March 30 for more information or to arrange entry to the reactivation and re-designation ceremonies being held at Naval Air Station Pensacola and Eglin AFB respectively.
 

ebcarlson23

New Member
So to sum up the last two weeks: things are looking pretty bleak right now.
I'll open up the betting pool for numbers that each service gets. $5 in, but by the time the jet is delivered, it may have increased exponentially.
 

helolumpy

Apprentice School Principal
pilot
Contributor
I'm all for squadron history, but this doesn't make sense....

MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, N.C. (March 26, 2010) Following a 13-year retirement, VMFA-451 will be reactivated in order to be re-designated as VMFAT-501 in a ceremony scheduled for Friday, Apr. 2 at 10 a.m., aboard Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., at the Joint Integrated Training Center. Media are invited to attend this event as well

If you're going to reactivate a squadron, then why not keep the squadron number the same? I can by the "letters" changing because the aircraft or mission changes, but it seems like if the heraldry of the squadron is important, then you keep the same squadron number going.

I'm I missing something here?
 

Alpha_Echo_606

Does not play well with others!™
Contributor
I'm all for squadron history, but this doesn't make sense....



If you're going to reactivate a squadron, then why not keep the squadron number the same? I can by the "letters" changing because the aircraft or mission changes, but it seems like if the heraldry of the squadron is important, then you keep the same squadron number going.

I'm I missing something here?
Good question, how can VAQ 132 get its origins from VP 29?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VAQ-132
 

Uncle Fester

Robot Pimp
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
All I know is: "Major Aisha Bakkar"...with that name, she should be commanding a space battleship or something.
 

HeyJoe

Fly Navy! ...or USMC
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
On your marks....

...so now you maniacs can start trying to figure your chances, align your timelines, etc.

THE COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS (CMC) DIRECTED THE REACTIVATION OF VMFA-332 AS THE FIRST JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF) SQUADRON. VMFA-332 WILL SUPPORT THE MARINE CORPS TACTICAL AVIATION TRANSITION INTO THE F-35B. THE REACTIVATION DATE FOR VMFA-332WILL OCCUR DURING 1ST QTR FY 11 AT MCAS YUMA, AZ.
 

HeyJoe

Fly Navy! ...or USMC
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Your name here...

Was wandering around Pax today and bumped into an F-35B (BF-02). Figured someone would want to photoshop their name onto a JSF canopy rail for use as an Avatar or motivational whatever...enjoy!

5L7P4613.jpg


HJ photo
 
Top