Intake Forms For Proposal Support Group: Fill & Download for Free

When I grew up in the UK in the 1950’s coal was still king. Most trains were still steam trains, the steel industry was going strong despite being nationalised and then privatised, and most homes were heated by coal fires.When I went to University in 1965 to study mining engineering, our 27 strong all male student intake consisted of two distinct groups. There were those who came from traditional coal mining districts, many of whom had already worked in the coal industry for a few years. And then there was a smaller group, including me, who had mostly just completed high school and were more interested in careers in metal mining around the world. Then, and now, many international mining companies were based in or had substantial shareholders in the UK.The state owned coal industry was still mining almost 200 million tons per year from hundreds of mines. One mine we visited close to the university was mining a four foot thick seam at a depth of more than 2,000 feet.One of the projects in planning was the Selby mine complex - that would be a wholly new complex of underground mines employing the latest technology. Our lecturers talked about it as the wave of the future, with all the latest technology.Coal mining production in the UK peaked in 1913 at 287 million metric tons - a staggering 29% of that year’s total world coal production. One third of output was exported. The industry employed 1.2 million miners - all male, although there were a few females in ancillary jobs. Also employed were 70,000 pit ponies.Some of the other key events in the rise and fall of the coal industry in the UK were:1850s The UK was producing half the world’s steel1862 For the first time more than 100 million tons are mined1892 Annual production above 200 million tons for the first time1912 A national strike lasted 37 days and resulted in legislation for minimum wages1913 Peak output1917 Because of the importance of coal in the war effort, the government took control of coal mines, although formal ownership remained with the private owners1919 Control returned to the owners1921 With nearly all mines losing money, the owners tried to reduce wages, resulting in a protracted strike. On 15 April, other labour unions declined to join the strike , resulting in the day being known among unionists as ‘Black Friday’.1926 A nine month long strike greatly reduced production to 128 million tons. The miners were supported for a few days by a general strike. Some feared a Bolshevik revolution.1946 Coal mines were nationalised under the Labour government. Coal was in great demand but production had fallen due to labour shortages and lack of investment during the war. The slogan of the new National Coal Board (NCB) was ‘Coal at any price’.1960s The era of large bulk carriers made the importation of coal from the US and Australia economic.1963 Annual production above 200 million tons for the last time1966 A coal waste collapse at Aberfan kills 144 people including 116 children. The reputation of the NCB and its Chief Alf Robbins is severely damaged.1972 A two month long strike resulted in violent protests. Attempts to break the strike caused well publicised accidents. Conservative prime minister Edward Heath looked ineffectual.1974 A national coal mining strike caused an energy crisis and the fall of the Conservative government. The new Labour government granted a 70% wage increase over 2 years, cruelling coal economics. With Labour party approval, the NCB announced a Plan for Coal - with massive investment proposed, including for the Selby Mine complex.1984/5 A year long strike reduced output to just 51 million tons in 1984. But the conservative government of Margaret Thatcher proved much tougher than that of Edward Heath, and managed to divide the miners. After the settlement in March 1985, industrial action dropped sharply.1988 The last year when production reached above 100 million tons1992 Roofbolting finally introduced into British coal mines. Essential to productivity in US and Australian mines, British mines used other labour intensive support systems.1994 Privatisation of the coal industry announced. Selby - where one of my class mates was the manager- is a key asset.2001 For the first time coal imports of 35 million tons exceed production of just 32 million tons.2004 Selby mine complex closes with 2 billion tons of reserves left in the ground.2015 The last deep coal mine in the UK closed. A few open cut and artisanal type mines remain.2019 Coal production in the UK has dropped to just 2.2 million tons.In summary, the decline started in 1914 and has lasted over a hundred years.

IBS is a challenging condition because we describe it as a physiological condition rather than a disease with a finite set of root causes. The dietitians I know reiterate that every person’s IBS is triggered by different root causes, and that the symptoms vary person-to-person.A combination of medicine and diet can help alleviate your symptoms. Below we outline foods to avoid, foods to eat, and medicines that can bring relief to IBS symptoms.Foods to Avoid with IBS: Our Comprehensive ListRemember, don't let this list discourage you. Because each person is different, you may be able to enjoy many of the foods below. Our list is simply a sampling of foods that have triggered IBS symptoms in some individuals:Fruits, Veggies, Dairy for an IBS DietHigh-gas foods such as broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, and beans: Foods in these two veggie families contain an indigestible sugar called raffinose. Our body’s lack the enzyme to digest raffinose. However, our bacteria in the large intestine ferment raffinose, creating methane gas as a byproduct. As you may have experienced, this gas can trigger your IBS symptomsSOME Fresh fruit: NEWSFLASH; fruit is essential to a healthy diet. It contains many macro and micro-nutrients that are key to helping you look and feel your best. However, if you have IBS, not all fruit is created equal. Fruits that are very high in fructose can cause issues. So, avoid apples and pears, and (to an extent) watermelon and concentrated fruit. Focus on eating bananas, oranges, and berriesMinimize consumption of foods high in lactose, such as milk, ice cream, and soft cheeses, especially if lactose intolerance is suspected. Studies in China and India recently found lactose intolerance to be common in subsets of people who reported IBS. While we know that this sounds obvious, if you know you are allergic to a specific food, please avoid it!Fiber and IBS Diet: Finding the Right BalanceVery high fiber foods: Like with fruit, too much fiber can trigger IBS symptoms. While fiber can help alleviate constipation, certain high fiber foods may increase gas production and cause bloating. Aim for soluble (vs insoluble) fiber that adheres to a low FODMAP diet. Avoid corn and wheat bran, beans, and seeds. So what are your options? Quinoa and oats, such as oatmeal, are a great start. Other tolerable foods may include lentils and chickpeasIBS Diet and Junk Food: These are Pretty ObviousCarbonated beverages: these drinks can lead to gas accumulation in your body. Additionally, their artificial sweetener and caffeine can cause IBS symptoms to flare upChewing gum or drinking liquids through a straw. Why? Both of which can lead to swallowing air, which causes gas buildup. Chewing gum may also contain the artificial sweetener sorbitol, which is a known IBS triggerFried or other high-fat foods: fried foods can irritate your intestine and cause diarrhea. Think: onion rings, french fries, fried chicken fingersAvoid or minimize alcohol and caffeine intake, as both substances can stimulate the intestines and lead to diarrhea. Further, alcoholic drinks such as beer may cause bloating, which can be hard to alleviate if you have IBS. Caffeine is commonly found in tea, coffee, and some carbonated beverages. Some researchers hypothesize that caffeine rapidly speeds up the digestive process and can lead to more frequent bowel movementsAvoid artificial sweeteners that contain sugar alcohols, such as sorbitol, mannitol, and xylitol, which may cause diarrhea. Numerous studies have connected sugar alcohols to bloating, gas, and diarrheaEthnic Food and IBSSpicy foods: these foods can also irritate the intestine, although it depends on the person. If you don't feel well after spicy food, maybe you should ease up on the jalapenos. A recent study showed that women who regularly ate spicy food (>10 times per week) were more than twice as likely to develop IBS than those who did notIBS Diet and MindfulnessAvoid large meals, which may promote cramping and/or diarrhea: This one is pretty simple. Large meals take longer and are more difficult for your body to digest. Take your time, enjoy your food with friends and family, and try not to eat while you are on-the-goIBS and Specific Dietary PhilosophiesAvoid High-FODMAP foods: many of the foods listed above (dairy containing lactose, fruits containing fructose- apples and pears, plus the gassy veggies at the top). FODMAPsare un-absorbable carbohydrates that act as substrates for bacterial fermentation and gas production, potentially triggering GI symptoms. Check out our entire section on low FODMAP foods and how to implement a low-FODMAP routine!Avoid Gluten. Your doctor may recommend avoiding foods that contain gluten—a protein found in wheat, barley, and rye—to see if your IBS symptoms improve. Foods that contain gluten include most cereal, grains, and pasta, and many processed foods. Some people with IBS have more symptoms after eating gluten, even though they do not have celiac disease.Specific Foods to Eat for IBS ReliefLean meat, chicken, and fish shouldn't cause issues: Unlike fatty foods, these protein sources are lower in fat (and as a result, milder on your GI tract) and should be the staple of most of your mealsWhen you eat vegetables, cook them first! We're nutritionists, so of course we believe that your veggies are important. If you have IBS, eat cooked veggies. The cooking process breaks down the fibers within the vegetable tissue, making them easier to digest. No need to boil. Steaming, sauteeing, and roasting are great ways to prepare cooked veggies. The following veggies qualify as low-FODMAP foods: carrots, zucchini, butternut and acorn squash, lettuce, spinach, eggplant, cucumbers, bananasWhen eating fruits, remove the skin: This preparation step will reduce insoluble fiber. Your stomach will thank you laterLove savory foods? You don't have to give up on cheese. Your stomach can better digest:Hard cheeses: during the manufacturing process, most of the lactose is removed from the curd, which makes the final product easier to break down. Hard cheeses include Cheddar, Camembert, Cheshire, Pecorino Style, Swiss, Brie, Blue Cheese, Harvati, or Parmesan. All of these cheese qualify as low-FODMAP foods.Lactose-free milk: lactose-free milk has come a long way since it first hit the market. Because lactose is removed, it can be easier for for you to digest. Our top pick has name-brand recognition: LactaidLactose-Free Ice Cream: Breyer's makes a lactose-free ice cream, and our clients have told us that it scratches the ice cream itch! Try it and let us know what you thinkLow-lactose or lactose-free yogurt (or kefir): During the production process, regular yogurt is strained multiple times. The straining removes the why (which in turn procuces lactose). Straining gives yogurt its creamy texture, so it really kills two birds with one stone. Lactose-free yogurt brands include Stonyfield and Green Valley OrganicsGeneral eating tips and behaviors for IBS DietDrink plenty of fluids (i.e. water!) to help alleviate constipation. Studies have shown that water and non-caffeinated teas (such as herbal teas) can help avoid IBS symptoms. Also, do not drink carbonated beverages! That's asking for trouble.Eat smaller, more frequent meals... The logic here is pretty simple. Smaller meals are easier to digest!We also suggest eating more fiber. Fiber may mitigate constipation in IBS because it makes stool soft and easier to pass. The 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americansrecommends that adults should get 22 to 34 grams of fiber a day. We recommend focusing on foods modestly high in soluble fiber, such as oatmeal, oat bran, oranges, strawberries, nuts, and carrots. Keep in mind the major difference between the two types of fiber, soluble and insoluble:Soluble fiber: Found in beans, fruit, and oat products. Research suggests that soluble fiber is more helpful in relieving IBS symptomsInsoluble fiber: Found in whole-grain products and vegetablesTo help your body acclimate to eating more fiber, add higher fiber foods to your diet bit by bit. Blasting your system with fiber can cause gas, which can trigger IBS symptoms. Adding fiber to your diet slowly, by 2 to 3 grams a day, may help prevent gas and bloating.Try a low FODMAP diet: In addition to the tips we shared above, one of the most common diets to control IBS is a low FODMAP diet. Read more about our low FODMAP recommendations.Medicine and Working with your PhysicianLubiprostone (Amitiza) is prescribed only for patients with IBS with constipation (IBS-C) and has been found to improve symptoms of abdominal pain, stool consistency, straining, and constipation. It’s prescribed only when all other treatments have failed. Side effects may include nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal pain.Alosetron (LOTRONEX) is intended for use only in women with severe cases of IBS-D who haven’t responded to other treatments. Because of its potentially severe side effects, including severe constipation and ischemic colitis, it can be prescribed only by physicians enrolled in the Prescribing Program for LOTRONEX, which requires them to sign an agreement acknowledging that they understand IBS-D and LOTRONEX’s possible side effects.Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) (eg, amitriptyline [Elavil]) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) (eg, sertraline [Zoloft]) have been shown effective in patients with all subtypes of IBS. It’s thought that TCAs may work best for IBS-D by reducing sensitivity to pain in the GI tract and normalizing GI motility and secretion. SSRIs, on the other hand, may be better suited to patients with IBS-C because of effects on colon transit. Side effects may include drowsiness and constipation.Antibiotics such as rifaximin (Xifaxan), which stays in the gut without being reabsorbed, may benefit patients with IBS symptoms caused by SIBO. In studies using lactulose or glucose breath testing, SIBO was detected in up to 84% of patients who met the Rome criteria for IBS. Additionally, results from multiple clinical studies have shown that treatment with nonabsorbable antibiotics can reduce or eradicate SIBO and improve IBS symptoms, suggesting that SIBO may indeed play a role in IBS.Antispasmodic medications such as dicyclomine (Bentyl), which belong to a class of medications called anticholinergics, sometimes are used to treat IBS. Although antispasmodics may be helpful for patients with IBS-D and may help alleviate painful bowel spasms, constipation is one possible side effect, so these drugs should be used only as needed in diarrhea-predominant IBS.Over-the-Counter Medications and SupplementsThe antidiarrheal loperamide (Imodium) has been found to reduce stool frequency in patients with diarrhea, but it doesn’t reduce pain, bloating, or other IBS symptoms.Laxatives such as polyethylene glycol 3350 (MiraLAX) sometimes are used to treat IBS but aren’t recommended by the American College of Gastroenterology, as there are other treatments that may provide the same relief from constipation but with fewer potential side effects, such as nausea, abdominal cramping, and gas.Fiber supplements may be recommended to relieve constipation when increasing dietary fiber is ineffective. Although wheat and corn bran haven’t been shown to be effective in treating IBS, positive results have been seen when adding psyllium, a soluble fiber supplement, to the diet.Although more research is needed, some studies suggest that probiotic supplements, especially those predominantly containing Bifidobacterium infantis, help alleviate abdominal pain, bloating, and irregular bowel movements. Probiotics are microorganisms that supplement the GI tract’s natural bacteria, helping to balance intestinal flora.Several mechanisms of probiotics’ beneficial effects on intestinal mucosa have been proposed, including suppression of the growth and binding of pathogenic bacteria, improvement of the epithelium’s barrier function, and alteration of the host’s immune activity.In a review of 19 randomized controlled trials that included 1,650 patients with IBS, the authors found probiotics to be significantly better than placebo for addressing symptoms, although the magnitude of the benefits and the most effective species and strains were uncertain.Regarding B infantis, a large-scale, multicenter clinical trial of women with IBS found significant improvement of symptoms, including abdominal pain, bloating, bowel dysfunction, incomplete evacuation, straining, and the passage of gas, with the probiotic vs. placebo.Lifestyle/Psychological TherapiesStudies of patients seeking treatment for IBS have indicated that 50% to 90% of these individuals have a lifetime history or currently have one or more common psychiatric conditions, such as major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, social phobia, somatization disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder.As noted previously, TCAs such as amitriptyline have been shown to be effective for treating IBS, both via reducing sensitivity to pain in the GI tract and normalizing GI motility and secretion, and 13% of patients with IBS have reported using antidepressants. More and more patients, however, are seeking nondrug or mind/body treatments for IBS. Although the evidence is moderate, there are some lifestyle and psychological therapies that may benefit IBS patients. For patients with concurrent IBS and mental health problems, several therapies, such as talk therapy, hypnosis, and mindfulness training, may be beneficial.One study that compared IBS patients who received various medication(s) alone with those that received medication plus cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), a type of talk therapy, found that the patients receiving CBT and medication experienced greater resolution of IBS symptoms than did those who received medication alone.Another study found that IBS patients receiving gut-directed hypnotherapy, a type of therapy that teaches patients hypnotic skills to control gut function, in conjunction with supportive talk therapy, significantly improved physical and psychological well-being vs. those patients who received supportive talk therapy alone.In addition, patients have been able to successfully reduce IBS symptoms with mindfulness meditation. In one randomized controlled study, 75 women with IBS were randomly assigned to eight weekly and one half-day intensive sessions of either mindfulness training or a support group. training and at three months follow-up, than did those in the support group.

The F-35 is an extremely expensive and complicated aircraft, by far the most complex and costly of it’s kind — and it’s only just now reaching the level of performance one might expect out of a multi-billion dollar defense program.But man…. the signs are looking encouraging these days. That’s a hard pill for me to swallow. I have long been a critic of LockMart, whose most visible contracting debacle has been the numerous stumbles getting the F-35 to IOC (initial operating capacity). We’ve all seen the clickbait articles about the F-35 getting schooled by fighters 1/10th it’s price, or that it can’t fire it’s weapons, or whatever. Most of those articles, and criticisms, are trash or outdated. So let’s take a look at where the F-35 stands, what it means to judge it at this stage of it’s career, and analyze objectively what it can do.We’ll start with the plane itself. When people say “The F-35”, they’re talking about three different planes. The F-35A, is the U.S. Air Force model and like most USAF planes is built for conventional takeoff and landing. The F-35C is the U.S. Navy variant, and like most of their carrier aircraft is built for CATOBAR: Catapult-assisted takeoff, but arrested recovery.These two variants are very similar, and have relatively minor differences that suit the general needs of their services. For instance, the -A model has an internal gun, while the -C model uses an external pod. The -C model also has been strengthened for naval operations (which are harder on a plane due to corrosion and slamming the plane on deck). The -A model is the lightest, fastest, and most agile of the three. The -C has slightly larger, folding wings and better low-speed handling to accommodate carrier operations. So far, nothing earth-shattering here. This is roughly the same with any plane with land/naval variants (for instance, the MiG-29k or Rafale M).However, it’s the -B model that is the real special snowflake, and frankly the cause of all the F-35’s problems. The U.S.M.C. oriented STOVL (Short Takeoff Vertical Landing) F-35B is designed to operate on the U.S.M.C.’s LHD’s (basically mini-carriers) like the U.S.S. Wasp. You’ve all seen the huge intake fan smack-dab in the middle of the F-35B’s fuselage.See it, the round thing just behind the cockpit? On the F-35A and F-35C, that doesn’t exist. But since the aircraft was designed to have commonality between all three variants (rather than making the F-35B into some completely independent design), the -A and -C chassis has to accommodate a large feature that they simply don’t use.What this means, is that pound for pound, inch for inch, the F-35A and F-35C are inefficiently designed because of the need to support the -B’s powerplant. That’s a huge deal when every pound matters. For scale, compare the size of the fan alone, with the guy on the far right of the picture:My point is that whenever you talk about the F-35, make sure you’re talking about the right one. Now, let’s get to performance.F-35 Fighter PerformanceHow do you measure fighter performance? Well you either fight a war and get actual combat experience….or you do lots of training, including Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT), and training with aggressor squadron aircraft (such as German MiGs). Now, a very important rule in air combat training is not to *actually* shoot down your colleagues. That would be very bad and expensive. So, to get around this, we simulate some aspects of these engagements. For instance, a “kill” may constitute simply placing the gun pipper over a target from the rear-aspect for .5 second or more and saying “Guns Guns Guns” or something like that on the radio. Or a “kill” may be determined by acquiring a radar lock from BVR (beyond visual range), “firing” an AMRAAM (the AIM-120 advanced medium-range air-to-air missile; which has a 100 mile range and “fire and forget” capability), and the air controller confirming the lock, rolling dice and consulting a table to see if it hits. It all depends on the engagement. So nobody actually gets shot down in these engagements — but they do get valuable experience in the air combat maneuvering necessary to secure or avoid a shootdown.So what do these engagements look like? Well, they vary widely too, even within the same training session. Sometimes, they’re doing BVR training — the F-35’s are not within visual range of their opponent. Maybe they’re vectored in by a controller, or maybe it’s up to them to self-identify and decide whether to engage or evade. Other times, it’s dogfighting. In this case, one side usually starts on the “offensive” — in better (usually rear-aspect) position than the enemy, while the other side starts on the “defensive”, attempting to deny the enemy a missile shot and maneuver to place the enemy on his nose for his own shot. Sometimes the fight starts neutrally, where both fighters merge and neither starts from the dominant position.As you might expect, whether one is starting from BVR or from the defensive can make a major difference in the outcome of the fight. When you see stories about F-35’s — or any other aircraft, for that matter — losing a dogfight, you need to ask yourself “What were the conditions? How did this fight start? What were the restrictions?” And in many cases, you’ll see that the scenarios are tailor made for one side or the other to win, for training purposes.The F-35 has a spotty track record in prior simulated combat. However, that record comes with a massive, massive, asterisk next to it — most of these simulations placed unrealistic restrictions on the F-35 that affected the outcome. For instance, it’s not a fair test of the F-35’s abilities when it’s flight computer physically restricts the pilot from pulling as many G’s as the opponent can. It’s not a fair test of the F-35’s abilities when the missiles used in testing are not the same ones that the fighter will actually deploy with in combat, and don’t have their helmet-mounted cuing system working yet. But to get views, (or out of ignorance), the media will proudly jump on clickbait suggesting that the F-35 can easily be shot down by even last generation fighters.Nothing could be further from the truth.The most recent, and most realistic, training engagement of the F-35 made public comes from the account of a Royal Norwegian Air Force major who flew the Lightning in dogfights against U.S. and private contractor aggressors. Keep in mind this guy has 2000+ hours in the F-16 and is a U.S. Navy Test Pilot School graduate. He knows his stuff. So what were the outcomes?The F-35’s sensor suite fusion capabilities made it trivial for him to keep track of the location of 8 aggressor aircraft, who were equipped with jammers and EW performance comparable to the F-16. In fact, even without a fight controller/AWACS, no data-sharing from friendly aircraft, no Link-16 information coming — nothing but his own onboard sensors, the F-35 was able to maintain awareness of the location of the enemies at all times, arrive undetected to the intercept, and deliver weapons, without detection. He deliberately made high-risk choices to see if he could get spotted, and wasn’t. Even outnumbered 2 vs 4 with the opponent beginning on the offensive, the F-35’s completely dominated the sky.Even starting on the defensive, the F-35’s wiped the floor with their aggressor aircraft, every time. This is a direct blow to the credibility of those who love to crow about how the F-35 is less maneuverable than 4th gen fighters (perhaps it is), or can’t point it’s nose as well as the F/A-18 or do useless Pugachev’s Cobra’s like a SU-27 (a tactically useless maneuver that Russian fanboys love, that allows the aircraft to point it’s nose basically wherever it wants, at the cost of essentially all it’s energy, leaving it a sitting duck to every other enemy out there.)This highlights two major features about the F-35. First, it’s stealth capabilities, despite being worse than those of the F-22, are still incredibly good. Remember, stealth doesn’t have to mean “invisible.” It just has to mean “invisible enough for you to do anything about it.”It maneuvers nearly as well as most 4th-gen fighters, when you actually put apples-to-apples and compare them with the F-35A in an air-to-air configuration. In fact, performance appears to be favorably comparable to the F-15E. It has nearly the same thrust-to-weight ratio as the F-15, better performance than the Typhoon at low altitudes, comparable or better acceleration to the Typhoon below Mach 1.5, and does so while carrying internal weapons against a completely clean loadout for the Typhoon. Simply put — it may not be better, but it’s “good enough” for anything out there.This is the F-35 Lightning in a nutshell — “Good enough for anything out there”, slapped on with powerful radar and sensors, in a colorful stealthy candy shell. And that really can’t be understated, because nearly all the criticisms and proposed counters to the F-35 ultimately fall flat.F-22 viewed through FLIR. See below as to why this is meaningless in regard to IRST. [1]“B-b-but it’s vulnerable to IRST/Electro-Optical.” No, it’s not. There is no realistic scenario where a 4th generation, unstealthy fighter closes to within 50km of the F-35 — the exact location of which is unknown — and attempt to electro-optically locate it and fire a short-ranged missile at it successfully. Now in order for that scenario to actually happen, a number of things need to exist.The F-35 is alone, no wingmen, no supporting elements nearby.The F-35 is unsupported by any ground or air controllers, and has no idea the 4th gen fighter is there.The F-35’s own AESA radar is unable to detect the approaching fighter, before it closes to visual ranges.The weather conditions support IRST.Everything else in the area that can communicate with the F-35 via datalink also is unable to detect the approaching fighter.The 4th gen fighter can actually find the F-35 without making itself visible on radar (for instance, an SU-27 with radar turned off and searching on infrared for a R-27ET shot). Without actually knowing that the F-35 is there in the first place, and knowing where to look, this is like searching for a penny in a football stadium on a pitch-black night, with only a flashlight.Presumably, he’s doing this at supercruise speeds, meaning the IRST camera has only a very narrow window, measured in seconds, within which to acquire the target.While the pilot is focusing on many other things.The 4th gen fighter can acquire and maintain a weapons solution on the F-35 long enough to kill it.The F-35 doesn’t see the approaching contrails and evade.The 4th gen fighter isn’t killed by any surrounding friends of the F-35.“B-b-but it isn’t as good a dogfighter as the Typhoon/Fulcrum/Flanker/PAK-FA (lol)”First, that’s been debunked pretty substantively - it performs comparably well to any 4th gen fighter when you compare usable combat configurations.Specifically, the most commonly cited claim, that it was defeated by the F-16’s it was supposed to replace (from War is Boring), has been conclusively debunked — the F-35 in question lacked stealth coating and had no sensors. Uh, congrats… a highly upgraded Block 40 variant F-16 defeated a malfunctioning prototype.Second, as mentioned repeatedly, dogfighting is no longer the most realistic scenario that the F-35 will encounter. I won’t go so far as to say air combat will never reach the merge. That’s ridiculous. But fact is, these days most combat occurs BVR, and even that which occurs WVR is increasingly less likely to result in extended maneuvering for a rear-aspect shot. Yes, the F-35 by virtue of fielding the AIM-9X is less effective than it’s counterparts with better High Off Bore Sight (HOBS) capabilities. Not by much though, and as we’ve established, those scenarios are happening less and less.In 1965, guns accounted for 65% of kills, with another 25% from rear-aspect missile shots. Over 90% of engagements involved WVR combat.By the 1980’s, BVR accounted for 30% of all kills, while guns dropped to just 7% and rear-aspect shots only 20% — nearly half that of all-aspect missiles.By the start of the Iraq War, BVR accounts for 55% of all air-to-air kills, while guns fell to 2% and rear-aspect AAM shots only 8%.Incidentally, radar-guided AAMs are far, far more reliable and responsible for vastly more kills historically than IR-guided missiles, by nearly double.The trend is both obvious and makes common sense. Now, with greater visibility from fighter controllers, better radar, and better missiles, we know where everything on the battlefield is. We can engage enemies before they get close, and cause them to endure a wave of AMRAAMs to thin their numbers or force a defensive maneuver rather than continue their attack profile. Except, we can do this without them having the ability to shoot back. Suddenly, your 8 ship flight is now 5, and you’ve burned energy/altitude evading the AIM-120’s coming at you, and it’s not looking like such a good idea to continue your attack from such a weakened position. That’s why the F-35 is so powerful.“B-b-but I saw a picture of an F-22 glowing on night vision camera….”Stop. Not the same kind of IR. Not capable of providing targeting information, not at range…. it’s like saying you saw a child scribbling with crayon and argue it’s evidence Picasso chose the wrong medium.“It’s not as good as the F-22”No, it’s not. In fact, it’s inferior in just about every way to the F-22. But this is actually by design. The F-22 is a purpose built air-dominance fighter that happens to be so good, it can do a strike mission as well. The F-35 was designed as a multirole fighter with CAS as a primary responsibility. As such, yes, you can expect it to be less maneuverable than the F-22 in ways that matter for air combat.But more precisely, it’s an export-oriented fighter. We don’t export our best stuff; neither does Russia, generally speaking. The F-35 is designed for foreign military sales. The F-22 is off limits for everyone else. And the F-22 production line is closed and cannot be reopened without significant expense. The F-35 does not have this problem — though it’s recent success combined with the F-22’s spectacular record are causing this decision to be reevaluated in Congress.A former F-22A pilot is on record having flown — recently — in the F-22 against the F-35B (!) and said that it feels “very Raptor-ish” to fly against.He notes that like the F-22, the sensor fusion and stealth capabilities mean that the F-35 needs more bandits and more missiles to play with during training than less capable 4th gen fighters. A 2-ship flight of Raptors is capable of taking on groups of 8–12 adversaries, and the Lightning is only slightly more ordnance-limited.[2]“B-b-but Dan, you hate the F35 and LockMart.”Yeah, I’ve talked a lot of smack over the years about them. I still do, about LockMart. The whole process for acquiring this plane has been an atrocious debacle. Without the -B model, this could have been done at half the cost or less. The aircraft was a joke with LockMart the source of seemingly never-ending delays. But enough time and enough money can solve all problems, and it looks like we threw sufficient amounts of both at the problem here.“It’s a single-engine plane!”Yeah. No getting around this — it’s a restriction of the F-35B, again. This has practical implications that again, no way of getting around. It’s less ideal for long-distance maritime operations, where a single engine outage can be disastrous. This is probably the strongest point in favor of the advocates in Canada, and other nations, who propose acquiring the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet instead. Personally, I think the pluses of the airframe outweigh the minuses, but this is a clear case where reasonable people can disagree.“It can’t <fire off-boresight/use it’s helmet cuing system/some other technical capacity it is supposed to have>.”“Yet.” This is another area where LockMart has consistently fallen down, but these days it seems that avionics are so extremely complex that we have to carefully plan out our software upgrades. Keep in mind that the F-14, 15, and 16 series aircraft run on technology built when the best computers were still called “Pentium”….or older. When you see “The F-35 can’t turn harder than X G’s”, you’re seeing software restrictions while they test the plane’s full capabilities. As those restrictions are lifted, the plane is “allowed” to become increasingly more capable.However, even still, this is a threat highly overstated by F-35 critics. In order to make a high angle off-bore shot, one must first maneuver through the F-35’s BVR engagement envelope to merge with the F-35, acquire and maintain a lock on an airframe with 1/10th the RCS you have — assuming you have the avionics to slave your IR missile’s seeker to your radar — or otherwise you’re relying solely on the small IR seeker within the missile itself to acquire the F-35, maintain that lock long enough to fire the missile which must make a high energy maneuver at very close range to *maybe* hit an F-35 that’s defensively maneuvering and employing countermeasures. All while not getting shot down by the F-35 who is also engaging you with his own maneuverable AIM-9X’s, and his wingmen who we conveniently leave out of this scenario because it falls apart otherwise. Sure, they’re dangerous. We’ve known the R-73 was dangerous since the early 90’s. Which is why we also know precisely what it can do within it’s very, very limited range (less than 10 miles against a maneuvering opponent). Everything about the F-35 is designed to not let them get within that range, and even if they do get there, it is a given of modern air combat that they will not be able to just stay there and maneuver with impunity around a single F-35. Air operations do not exist in a vacuum.“It’s not ready now!”Sort of. The F-35A is expected to make IOC in the next month. [3] The Marines did the same for the F-35B last year, and though it was widely viewed as premature given the variant, that’s not such a problem for the -A model.In the next 5 years the remaining kinks will be worked out leaving an excellent platform.“It hasn’t fought good enough planes!”The F-35 has wiped the floor with everything from F-15E Strike Eagles (with flight capabilities comparable to the F-15C and extremely powerful AESA radar) to F-16’s and Eurofighters. As previously mentioned, it’s only “losses” come from scenarios designed to specifically limit the Lightning’s capabilities. While we’ve established that it is marginally less capable than some 4th-gen fighters beyond the merge, we’ve also established that the scenarios in which the F-35 is weakest are increasingly unlikely, and the scenarios that play to it’s strength are increasingly becoming the norm in air combat. In practical engagements, we’ve established that 4th gen fighters simply have no chance in a fair fight.Moreover, we’re often comparing dedicated air-superiority fighters to a multirole fighter performing a secondary mission — and it’s still holding it’s own or winning.“It’s replacing the A-10!”This is a tough one, because here we don’t really have an apples-to-apples comparison. The F-35 will always be inferior to a purpose-built CAS platform like the A-10; it is after all a multirole fighter and thus a “jack of all trades, master of none.” But, to be fair, the F-35 capably handled the CAS role at Green Flag. [4]There are really a ton of factors that play into this, including inter-service rivalry between the USAF (the A-10’s operator) and US Army (the A-10’s primary consumer) and Washington politics. Frankly, there are A-10 drivers here on Quora who are more qualified than any of us to speak to it.On the one hand, you have people who rightly point out that the A-10 is essentially neutered in an unsanitized environment, and that when faced with a capable air defence network, will suffer severe losses despite it’s highly vaunted armor and protection. Those advocates point out that even though the F-35 is not ideal for the job, it can get into areas the A-10 simply can’t, and it’s sensor suite is far more sophisticated to help JTACs prevent fratricide issues. They point out that there are plenty of vehicles that are capable of delivering Mavericks (or more capable ordnance) and JDAMs on target, and that the scenario of Russian hordes of T-80’s crossing the Fulda Gap is unrealistic. In the days of stand-off weaponry capable of accurately targeting cluster munitions against specific armored targets over entire grid squares, the A-10, on paper, looks fairly obsolete.On the other hand, you have people who rightly point out that no sortie exists in a vacuum, and the A-10’s mission is supported by other elements tasked with the SEAD and OCA missions to clear the way for them. They also point out that the A-10’s favorite airspace is, conveniently, both the kind we’re most likely to face in the near/immediate future, and also the kind we’re most likely to face after we win a war anyway. Put another way, “So what happens after the airspace isn’t contested anymore?” Fact is, A-10’s are rugged, reliable, fairly inexpensive, have huge payload, and have proven their worth. As infantry, we know what it can do. We love it. The insurgents know what it is too. They fear it. And it’s working here, right now. That can’t be underestimated. And honestly, for as long as the are SU-25’s in active service in former Russian states, there will be an argument for the A-10.So what’s the final verdict? Well, we have what appears to finally be a potent, dangerous multirole fighter, that does exactly what it needs to do for it’s mission, and while not as capable as purpose-built specialized aircraft in any of it’s roles it is “good enough.” It is inferior to the F-22, and while it’s performance is on par or slightly worse than it’s 4th gen counterparts, when taken as a total package it is far, far more capable than they are. And that’s before the Israeli Air Force modifies the crap out of theirs to show what can be done outside the strictures of our LockMart overlords. It’s a subpar choice for our maritime partners but they’re stuck with it. And overall, we paid an exorbitant price for this capability, with serious budgetary consequences that shouldn’t go unrecognized. The program is far from a failure — but it is most certainly a failure *as budgeted.* Fortunately, it seems unlikely to get a hatchet taken to it’s production run the way the F-22 did.But I can’t be mad though. It does prove the old adage that throw enough time and money at a problem, and you can solve anything. And that you can always, always blame the Marines. Thanks Jon Davis.Thanks for reading this answer. If you like this kind of content, please subscribe to Defense Quorum, Quora’s premiere blog on defense, foreign affairs, intelligence, and diplomatic matters. Our resident A-10 and F/A-18 drivers would love your feedback and our ground-pounders also have widely varying thoughts on the F-35 vs. A-10 in a CAS role. We also have an active Slack for blog coordination and general Quora chat; just ask in the comments.Footnotes[1] This is what the F-22 Raptor stealth jet looks like through the thermal camera of a crime-fighting helicopter[2] F-35 Very ‘Raptorish,’ Adversary Pilot Says[3] First Operational F-35A Squadron Finishes IOC To-Do List[4] F-35s played the US Army’s primary CAS providers during Green Flag. And were not shot down in the process