Marines F-35 reset

Variants for different customers or mission profiles
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2171
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post10 Oct 2019, 04:50

As I read Blain's tome above, it struck me that everything the good General was saying would seem to support more B's, rather than more C's. While the C has more range and payload capacity, the B would seem to be tailor made for dispersed operations, rapid movement from one FOB (EABO?), and operating "inside" the opponent's domain or reach. If Gen Berger opts to keep the B's at the same force level, or even increase B numbers... would the good Mr. Blain still consider the good General to be of an open mind?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5993
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post10 Oct 2019, 17:31

blain wrote:
quicksilver wrote:"I watched the video of Berger at the Heritage Foundation and was struck by how open minded he is."
You should get out of the house a little more...
.


I love the insults. Have you never heard of a general officer who played politics or focused more on protecting his/her turf? Maybe I not the one who needs to get out of the house?



blain, you've said yourself you don't understand why the Marines do what they do, so you literally comment on things you don't understand because as in your own words you think the new CMC is "agreeing" with you (payload! range! Because you don't like that the USMC does STOVL). This whole thread is your vanity project because you think it makes you right about STOVL and USMC air wing TO&E. Hence your first posts about "Sacred cows" and "dogma" which might mean something if you understood what the Dogma and Sacred Cows were in the first place.

quicksilver is right, you have actual Marines in here commenting with not only more experience than you, but this isn't our first new CMC either, and we aren't hobbyists. I'm glad you fell in love with your "first" CMC (he's just so dreamy! OMG counter cultural! the most brilliant!), but for a lot of us this isn't our first rodeo in fact as others have said he seems to be getting us back to the sacred cows and Dogmas-- how new are you to think that the emphasis of the USMC operating from a maritime environment to attack ashore is some kind of "revolutionary" concept?

The USMC working closely with the US Navy in the Pacific is about as Dogmatic and Sacred Cow as it gets.

This is the only the 3rd time in 10 years they are going to rearrange the composition of the F-35 fleet, so I'm waiting to hear more information until we hear more. And frankly again even the move to more F-35C's doesn't have as much to do with range and payload as you say it does anyway.

Again, I'm trying not to comment in this thread until I know more details what we have now is more big picture overview, but yes quicksilver is absolutely right. you do need to get out more. If this is your first Marine CMC, let along first General you may have a lot of studying to do. one of the reasons I enjoy F-16.net as much as I do, is because we seem to keep the braying sheep away and get people with some 1st hand knowledge talking based on facts, and not fanboying "i told you so" but here we are. I guess nothing last forever. in the meantime we do actually have people in this thread with real world 1st hand experience with the very complex USMC force structure and CONOPs things blain is obviously very new to.

"insult"? no he told you in a nice way actually that you're ignorant. if you want insults we have plenty. he's taking it easy on you. again, you have no background or notion of what was or what is or what might be, and thus you have no perspective of how "radically different" or as quicksilver pointed out actually Radically traditional General Berger is. He's actually getting the USMC back to the old days and you have him pegged as a 21st century revolutionary. That happens when you have no idea how things were, and thus no basis of seeing whats changed or what hasn't. again this might be new to you, but for a lot of us we seen the pendulum swing a few times now.

I know he will play dumb and innocent but this whole thread started with an "i told you so" based on the 2 factors he considered most important on a single aircraft variant, and then went on to shoot one across about the bow about Marine "Dogma" -- he is very much beyond his depth. Its like listening to a child to you the sun is hot "because its yellow" yes its yellow, but that's not why its hot.
Last edited by XanderCrews on 10 Oct 2019, 18:05, edited 2 times in total.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5993
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post10 Oct 2019, 17:50

steve2267 wrote:As I read Blain's tome above, it struck me that everything the good General was saying would seem to support more B's, rather than more C's. While the C has more range and payload capacity, the B would seem to be tailor made for dispersed operations, rapid movement from one FOB (EABO?), and operating "inside" the opponent's domain or reach. If Gen Berger opts to keep the B's at the same force level, or even increase B numbers... would the good Mr. Blain still consider the good General to be of an open mind?



Right. In other words the USMC is still for the same distributed operations (even more so, the CMC's directives) and part of that distribution is distributing more F-35Cs to more CVNs. so not "narrowing dispersion" to just L-class ships, a more even (distributed) spread.

muh dogmas, muh cows
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2171
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post10 Oct 2019, 20:11

As I've Sir Blain's comments and diatribes, my overall take is that he thinks the F-35B is stooopid and the USMC should not have ANY Killer Bees. It would seem clear that such a viewpoint is not shared by the new CMC, and that the F-35B is here to stay to deploy on and fly from LHA's as well as from dispersed forward bases, constantly shifting around when the flag goes up. While the precise split between B's and C's may yet vary, getting rid of all B's is a fool's argument.

On a note related to dispersal of forces and making it hard for the enema to target USN ships / task forces, upgunning LHA / LSD task force groups with mo' bettuh anti-ship weapons may be in order. On the one hand, that takes some potential firepower away from supporting boots on the ground, but on the other hand, a credible anti-surface warfare capability would seem to compound the PLA Navy problems. This could take shape in the form of Harpoon / NSM / LRASM (if ever fit for Mk-41 VLS use), or maybe just JSMs for F-35B's even if they have to be carried externally.

To take the dispersal idea further... since plans tend not to hold together once first contact with the enemy has been enjoined... are there any plans to test / certify F-35B operational use from CVN's? Super Dupers and Sea Killers cannot operate from LHA's, but certainly F-35B's could operate from CVN's if they find themselves short of aircraft?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23297
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Oct 2019, 20:38

'stevieTheWondering' said above: "...are there any plans to test / certify F-35B operational use from CVN's? Super Dupers and Sea Killers cannot operate from LHA's, but certainly F-35B's could operate from CVN's if they find themselves short of aircraft?" Now that would be something. However... not that I know with some suggestion yonks ago that NO! That is one reason why the original plan by USMC for ALL F-35Bs went out that window - USN did not like BEEs buzzing about CVNs.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5993
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post10 Oct 2019, 20:49

blain wrote:At the end of the Q and A an audience member asked about reevaluating the need for a Marine organic fixed wing Tac Air capability, a question which would send a few on this forum and other to the deep end.


blain buddy, what sent people off the "deep end" with you was your lies, invention, ignorance, falsehoods, and non sequiturs and outright denials and goal post moving in threads like this:

blain wrote:The only thing I like about the USMC air modernization plan is that they will at some point have C models. I don't understand the value of STOVL. Cost vs utility. Are we really expecting another Guadalcanal? Wherever the Marines deploy they will either have carrier air or land based Marine/USAF CAS.

Cost, small fuel capacity, and smaller weapons capacity is not worth minuscule chance you will need STOVL/VSTOL capability.



blain wrote:First, the British used Harriers in the Falklands because they had to due to their failure to retain conventional carriers and their air wing. Defense budgets are limited. This is a perfect illustration of the cost of not prioritizing funding on critical capabilities. The loss of life and shipping would have been much less if the RN had a Nimitz or even a Midway Class carrier. They are lucky they didn't lose the Hermes and Invisible. A conventional carrier with fighters and support aircraft would have enabled the British to push their fleet out further and fight more effectively. Do you think an E-2C would have enabled the RN to more effectively counter the Argentine Exocet attacks? Well if the Marines are going it alone then they are not going to have that support.

So what are those cases when the Marines will conduct operations without USAF tacair or carrier air?

If the United States needs to rely on LHDs with F-35B to fight a future high intensity conflict we are in trouble. That scenario is on the extreme part of the spectrum of future contingencies. How many MEUs and CH-53s/MV-22s are you going to displace in order to carry two squadrons of F-35s? Or are you going to rely 6 F-35Bs per big deck amphib? And what type of firepower/capability will that give to the joint forces commander? Without AWACS, tanking, EA, and ISR support? During the Gulf War the Navy reconfigured the air wing on the Nassau with 20 Harriers. It got the Harriers a little closer to the fight. They used it. Maybe they thought they needed it. I'd like to see someone argue that it would have been missed or that it was a must have capability. I think its key value was clearing more ramp space for other fixed wing fighters.

So we are left with low intensity operations - situations where the U.S. does not have the time or means to bring in air support and the MEU just happens to be in the area with 6 F-35s. Would any president commit a MEU to combat operations with just 6 F-35s to combat against a nation with more than a handful of fighters without preparing the battlespace first with counter air strikes? Probably not. The most likely scenarios where such a small contingent of fighters would be valuable would be the evacuation of non combatants in a relatively benign environment or an amphibious raid. It might be nice to have F-35s flying cover with AH-1Zs. But is it really needed.

Just because the Marines uses the Harrier and F-35B everyday is not an argument for the capability. Its not worth the cost and the trade off in range and payload. Money that is spent on a capability that is not critical to the operation of the Marines means less money for a capabilities which are more important. It is water under the bridge. But the Marine brass have made other poor decisions in pursuit of maintaining their amphibious capability - the EFV program and to some extent the V-22.

The fighter shortfall: And if the Marines standardized on a common airframe with the Navy how many more F-35s could they have purchased? Do you want more fighters or VSTOL?


from this thread 2 and a half years ago:

viewtopic.php?f=61&t=52942&p=365970&hilit=+stovl#p365970


multiple people in that very thread corrected you on some basic stuff, the result was rather than you realizing you were wrong and growing and listening to those who were there, you ouright disappeared only to return with the same bulls**t in many other threads including this one. how much should we even bother with you?

honestly I should just start linking back to that thread there anytime you even mention the USMC at all, but please spare us-- ignorant liars who refuse to listen will always send me off the "deep end."


Berger didn't belittle or dismiss the question outright.


ah geewhiz, what a doll! I guess I know why I never made got to be CMC then. :inlove:
Choose Crews
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2662
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post10 Oct 2019, 23:40

Gentlemen, blain utters the oft-repeated catechisms of big deck carrier praetorians, who predictably re-emerge with the same talkings points every time the most holy of sacred cows — the 90K+ ton CVN — are perceived to be threatened with talk of CVLs or similar additive force capabilities. The principle enabler of such concept capabilities most recently, of course, are VLO, supersonic, stovl, strike fighters commonly known as F-35Bs. Me thinks they dost protesteth too much.

I had to chuckle about the potential for stovl jets on CVNs. Yeah right...when Superman wears kryptonite skivvies.

Apart from blain, the only person — Marine or otherwise — that I’ve heard make mention of Guadalcanal in recent years is...

...Bill Sweetman. :wink:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23297
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post11 Oct 2019, 00:30

When will 'blain' break out into DOG LATIN - a billybobboysweetiepie specialty - who knows naught about naval aviation.
Meanwhile does my quote look big in this - oh I meant deja vu relevant maybe. First joint USN/USMC memo was 2002.
"...[2011] was a revision to a 2002 memorandum of understanding which set the now-unchanged goal of buying 680 F-35s. That memo did not set out how many STOVL or carrier versions the Navy and Marines would buy...." 14 Mar 2011 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/03/14/navy-marines-commit-to-stovl-jsf/

US Marine Corps to become 2nd F-35C customer
09 Mar 2011 Stephen Trimble [original post: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=15247&p=192517&hilit=Trimble#p192517 ]

Lieberman: I noted in the statement you made in your prepared testimony that the F-35C of the Joint Strike Fighter will be procured for both the navy and the marine corps. I think it's been the general understanding that the Marine Corps would want to see produced and would procure a pure F-35B STOVL fleet variant of the F-35 and that in fact is the plan that is reflected in the current future years defense program. Did I read this correctly in your prepared statement and could you speak therefore to the future mix if that is the correct interpretation of the F-35B and F-35C in the Marine Corps inventory?

Mabus: Yes, sir. It has always been true that the F-35B was solely a Marine aircraft. It's also been true the C version the carrier version the naval version was going to have marines flying those as well. Today we have three marine squadrons aboard carriers. And we are currently undergoing a TacAir [tactical aircraft] integration look across the navy and Marine Corps to see what the proper mix is of C's for the navy and Marine Corps to make sure that we continue that integration and make sure marines continue to fly off carriers in strike fighters as well as in vertical takeoff and landing aircraft.

Lieberman: General, can you give me your reaction to this? Is that mix at this point acceptable to the marine corps? Am I wrong that you had originally hoped for a pure STOVL variant fleet?

Amos: Senator, you are correct that was the initial plan. Let me back up just a little bit. We've always been fans of TacAir integration. As the secretary said, we have had marine squadrons on the navy carriers -- on the Enterprise right now, we have Marine F/A-18s. We do that. We like that. It's good for both our services and the naval force. But when we set the requirement in for STOVL aircraft our hope was we would be able to some day fly some of those aircraft off CVN aircraft carriers. That's yet to be seen whether that would be possible. So in the meantime it would seem prudent that we should buy some number of C variants even early on so we can begin to transition our force there. But it will be a proportional number to our overall buy of STOVL.”

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... e-2nd.html
[http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2011/03%20March/Mabus%2003-08-11.pdf]
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 157
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post11 Oct 2019, 02:07

steve2267 wrote:As I read Blain's tome above, it struck me that everything the good General was saying would seem to support more B's, rather than more C's. While the C has more range and payload capacity, the B would seem to be tailor made for dispersed operations, rapid movement from one FOB (EABO?), and operating "inside" the opponent's domain or reach. If Gen Berger opts to keep the B's at the same force level, or even increase B numbers... would the good Mr. Blain still consider the good General to be of an open mind?


Just wondering, does having an open mind mean you can't have an opinion? Berger himself said he doesn't see the Marines divesting themselves of fixed wing tac air (opinion), but it is on the table with everything else (open mind). He expressed bold ideas in his planning guidance (opinion), yet is willing to consider other ideas and concepts (open mind).

The B may theoretically sound like its tailor made for dispersed operations in a vacuum. But it needs to be tested against reality - requirements, the ability to support, the threat, concept of operations, geography, and politics.

The Planning Guidance says:

Rather than heavily investing in expensive and exquisite capabilities that regional aggressors have optimized their forces to target, naval forces will persist forward with many smaller, low signature, affordable platforms that can economically host a dense array of lethal and non- lethal payloads.

By exploiting the technical revolution in autonomy, advanced manufacturing, and artificial intelligence, the naval forces can create many new risk-worthy unmanned and minimally-manned platforms that can be employed in stand-in engagements to create tactical dilemmas that adversaries will confront when attacking our allies and forces forward. Stand-in Forces will be supported from expeditionary advanced bases (EABs) and will complement the low signature of the EABs with an equally low signature force structure comprised largely of unmanned platforms that operate ashore, afloat, submerged, and aloft in close concert to overwhelm enemy platforms.

Stand-in Forces take advantage of the strategic offensive and tactical defense to create disproportionate result at affordable cost. Because they are inherently resilient, risk worthy, inexpensive and lethal they restore combat credibility to forward deployed naval forces and serve to deter aggression.


Regarding EABO:

Success will be defined in terms of finding the smallest, lowest signature options that yield the maximum operational utility. We must always be mindful of the ratio of operational contribution to employment cost. We will test various forms of EABO against specific threats and ask ourselves whether EABO contributions to the joint force are worth its logistics and security burden. This ratio should always be more favorable than other joint force options contributing a similar capability.

Wargaming and analysis will largely determine how well the F-35B fits the criteria and whether more Cs are needed to supported naval integration. Is the F-35B "affordable, risk worthy, low signature, worth the security and logistic burden"? Can Bs operating from an austere FARP or a temporary facility create a disproportionate result at an affordable cost? If there is role for the F-35B then how many do you realistically need?

Geopolitics will limit the number of EABOs the Marines can operate from in the East China Sea or the South China Sea. The biggest challenge is access. Depending on the scenario, the Philippines, Vietnam, and South Korea likely would prefer to stay out of a conflict with China. Japan is probably the only nation which can be counted on. If the U.S.has to go it alone you are left fighting with attack submarines from within, and bombers and carrier air at long range. You can forget about the Bs operating from EABs or fixed base in an offensive manner, unless you intend on being an uninvited guest.

There are a finite number of location available for use in the Ryukyus and Japan's outlying island, whether they be military or civilian air fields, or even austere locations. In order for dispersal to work you need a lot of options. The options grow infinitely better on Kyushu. There are approximately 21 civilian and military air fields which can support conventional fighters, approximately 800 nm from the Taiwan Strait. Options are even better if you include Honshu and Shikoku - assuming the Japanese do not limit operations on the home islands to defensive purposes only. Once you start operating out of Japan's home islands you will need tanker support. It is also much easier to defend the Japanese home islands than the Ryukyus. Is operating out of the Japanese home islands even an option for the Marines and the F-35B? If you need tankers you will need to defend your air fields. If you can defend your air fields then maybe you don't need that much STOVL as you thought?

The Marines will also need to determine how many F-35Bs they can support at EABs. One KC-130J holds enough fuel for 5 F-35Bs. It will be much easier to support EABs on islands with a more robust infrastructure like Kyushu. The Planning Guidance explicitly recommends to consider the employment cost and whether the solution is worth the logistics burden. What's the requirement for big deck amphibs, especially if there will be less of a reliance on traditional transports? Does that free up LHA/LHDs to be used as small carriers? Or does it restrict the use of those ships for tac air?

It maybe your opinion that the new Planning Guidance call for more F-35Bs, but Berger seem to be signaling it does not. It specifically identifies a criteria for the stand-force - affordable, risk worthy, and disproportionate results as compared to the cost. There is a clear bias toward unmanned vehicles in the Planning Guidance and the solution they may arrive at maybe the F-35B paired with a loyal wingman which maybe less expensive, attritable, and easier to support. Or it maybe something else. Some wargaming and analysis has already been done. That probably explains why the Marines have signal an adjustment in the B/C mix.

People can characterize or mischaracterize what I say, or belittle me. I really don't care. I don't play that game.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2171
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post11 Oct 2019, 04:17

It's not as if many really smart Marines haven't already been thinking about this entire problem, crafting requirements for equipment such as for the JSF cum F-35B, modeling & simulating the F-35B. But you sure do seem to have an anti-STOVL stick shoved up your hind quarters.

It is good that the Corps is questioning itself, asking the hard questions, re-evaluating plans. But I hardly see the Corps or CMC Berger hinting that the F-35B is going anywhere, any time soon.

I've read a lot of opinion from you, but few hard facts or even logical analysis. Rather you would seem to be on a Pierre Sprey-esque anti-STOVL diatribe or campaign. Whatever.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5993
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post11 Oct 2019, 05:57

Just wondering, does having an open mind mean you can't have an opinion? Berger himself said he doesn't see the Marines divesting themselves of fixed wing tac air (opinion), but it is on the table with everything else (open mind).



do you actually think the CMC is considering getting rid of mandated air wings?


The B may theoretically sound like its tailor made for dispersed operations in a vacuum. But it needs to be tested against reality - requirements, the ability to support, the threat, concept of operations, geography, and politics.


they know what it requires its only been in service for years now, the question is if that's the direction they want to go in the numbers previously planned. ironically the version we know the least about with deployment is the C. B has dropped ordnance in combat. from a ship.

The Planning Guidance says:...



...It maybe your opinion that the new Planning Guidance call for more F-35Bs, but Berger seem to be signaling it does not. It specifically identifies a criteria for the stand-force - affordable, risk worthy, and disproportionate results as compared to the cost. There is a clear bias toward unmanned vehicles in the Planning Guidance and the solution they may arrive at maybe the F-35B paired with a loyal wingman which maybe less expensive, attritable, and easier to support. Or it maybe something else. Some wargaming and analysis has already been done. That probably explains why the Marines have signal an adjustment in the B/C mix.


They're going to shuffle the numbers, for reasons that don't line up with your claims but you're going to be happy to try and use as "told you so's" when from the get go and every thread since you've never understood any of it from the beginning and often get your facts wrong from the start, further exacerbating the problem.

People can characterize or mischaracterize what I say, or belittle me. I really don't care. I don't play that game.


maybe you should care, if theres no desire to contribute accurate informationto this site it might be a good idea to stop, like you do when confronted with facts and people with knowledge in all the other threads.

watching you fumble around with things you don't even comprehend really doesn't add anything to the conversation. it would be different if you were interested in learning, but over the years you've proven your not, and instead double down on the things you didn't know. Quicksilver and myself have already given some hints as to what might actually be happening, and its the opposite of what you claimed is happening. This isn't slaughter Dogmas and sacred cows-- its reinforcing them. for a guy who bellyached about the USMC being forever stuck in world war II, the Marines cosigning themselves to the big carriers for a giant pacific brawl would seem to be about as world war II as it gets. but then again this is blain the guy who used an example of a time the Marines were abandoned by the navy and had to rely on their own small air force to keep them alive and turn the pacific, while trying to make the case the Marines would never be on their own. So there's that. quicksilver put it accurately your trotting the same old dogs and ponies we've seen over and over.


I want to wait and see what the 3rd reshuffle gets us so exciting watching numbers on paper change and change and change (one could also get into just how smart it is tie the USMC to exclusively fighting China to the exclusion of all else for a force that prides itself on staying relevant in any conflict and being adaptable, but this is no place for conversations like that). I can't wait see how things shift again in 4 years and the next guy comes in and throws this plan out too-- which could indeed happen. I've seen it plenty of times already. One could argue that when you put all the parts and pieces together and look at CMCs guidance its still easier, cheaper and less risky to distribute dets of F-35Bs all over the pacific because its cheaper and less risky than sending expensive ships with thousands of men to crew them into harms way, but I digress. the most expensive way to send a fighter into battle is via CVN, and thats always been true which is one of the many reasons STOVL is popular.

Like i said we will see what happens but watching the USMC maintain the same style force structure it has for decades already in terms of CVN/land/STOVL would seem fairly dogmatic and a clear sacred cow, but this isn't a time for facts or history or logic or looking at things like that. With the Marines desperately trying to not be a "2nd land army" they've decided to be as maritime, amphibious, and fleet driven as possible-- that's hardly unconventional.
Choose Crews
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2662
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post11 Oct 2019, 11:49

Rather than heavily investing in expensive and exquisite capabilities that regional aggressors have optimized their forces to target, naval forces will persist forward with many smaller, low signature, affordable platforms that can economically host a dense array of lethal and non- lethal payloads.

By exploiting the technical revolution in autonomy, advanced manufacturing, and artificial intelligence, the naval forces can create many new risk-worthy unmanned and minimally-manned platforms that can be employed in stand-in engagements to create tactical dilemmas that adversaries will confront when attacking our allies and forces forward. Stand-in Forces will be supported from expeditionary advanced bases (EABs) and will complement the low signature of the EABs with an equally low signature force structure comprised largely of unmanned platforms that operate ashore, afloat, submerged, and aloft in close concert to overwhelm enemy platforms.

Stand-in Forces take advantage of the strategic offensive and tactical defense to create disproportionate result at affordable cost. Because they are inherently resilient, risk worthy, inexpensive and lethal they restore combat credibility to forward deployed naval forces and serve to deter aggression. eavily investing in expensive and exquisite capabilities that regional aggressors have optimized their forces to target, naval forces will persist forward with many smaller, low signature, affordable platforms that can economically host a dense array of lethal and non- lethal payloads.

By exploiting the technical revolution in autonomy, advanced manufacturing, and artificial intelligence, the naval forces can create many new risk-worthy unmanned and minimally-manned platforms that can be employed in stand-in engagements to create tactical dilemmas that adversaries will confront when attacking our allies and forces forward. Stand-in Forces will be supported from expeditionary advanced bases (EABs) and will complement the low signature of the EABs with an equally low signature force structure comprised largely of unmanned platforms that operate ashore, afloat, submerged, and aloft in close concert to overwhelm enemy platforms.

Stand-in Forces take advantage of the strategic offensive and tactical defense to create disproportionate result at affordable cost. Because they are inherently resilient, risk worthy, inexpensive and lethal they restore combat credibility to forward deployed naval forces and serve to deter aggression.”


You’d a thunk this might have come from a “CNOs Planning Guidance” — speshly the ‘expensive and exquisite‘ part. Word is he has an ‘open mind‘ also.
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1221
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post11 Oct 2019, 16:12

blain wrote: ..

Just wondering, does having an open mind mean you can't have an opinion? ... People can characterize or mischaracterize what I say, or belittle me. I really don't care. I don't play that game.


Generally on this forum we look for informed opinions. I might have an opinion on brain surgery. I doubt anyone cares to hear it. I'm not stupid, and if I pontificate how lasers might make brain surgery more effective ... heck I could be right! But rightly no one really cares.

I usually ask folks with assertions being presented as whimsical opinion, "Why should I care what you think?" That's not an insult but a genuine inquiry. The good General has "informed" opinions. I know why I care what he thinks. I'm a little at a loss right now as to why I care what your opinion is. Help me out and give a little background as to why your opinion matters.

Meanwhile as if I were on a brain surgery forum, instead of asserting opinions, I might content myself with asking questions of the brain surgeons who might be on the brain surgery forum.

Just Sayin' ,
BP
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23297
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post11 Oct 2019, 17:10

Twitter does not make for easy URL reference but anyways: USS America 08 Oct 2019 - 13 VMFA-122 F-35Bs working up.

https://twitter.com/CavasShips
Attachments
AMERICA13F-35BsVMFA122 08oct2019twice.jpg
AMERICA13F-35BsVMFA122 08oct2019sidesTWO.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

old_rn

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 43
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2015, 08:57

Unread post11 Oct 2019, 20:26

Those 12 F35Bs make the America the most potent strike carrier in the world?
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest