Marine Aviation Plan 2015

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

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7717
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post03 Mar 2015, 00:45

XanderCrews wrote:

Nice! I can hear Sol's head exploding now


not a pretty sight.
Attachments
Screenshot_2015-03-03-07-41-17.jpg
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23940
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post11 Mar 2015, 00:48

Another HeadExploder from MAXheadRoom:
Document: Evolving the Relationship of SOF and the ARG/MEU
10 Mar 2015 Trollinger Col Matthew G

"The following is a Jan. 13, 2014 outline of the U.S. Marine Corps efforts to better integrate U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) with embarked U.S. Navy and Marine Corps Amphibious Ready Groups and Marine Expeditionary Units (ARG/MEU)."

"...GLOBAL SOF NETWORK
USSOCOM- 2020 Vision A globally networked force of SOF, interagency, allies, and partners able to rapidly respond and persistently address regional contingencies and threats to stability."

Value of Forward Deployed Amphibious Forces
Advantages

• Sea-based approach limits our footprint ashore
• Reassures coalition partners and demonstrates commitment
• Allows rapid crisis response
• Enable rapid buildup of follow-on joint forces
• Deterrent that prevents and/or limits conflict
• Credible means to create and sustain access

Flexibility
• Build partnerships
• Respond to crises
• Project influence and power when and where necessary
“Amphibious flexibility is the greatest strategic asset that a sea-based power possesses.” - B.H. Liddell Hart, 1960, Soldier, Military Historian, Theorist


Source: http://news.usni.org/2015/03/10/documen ... the-argmeu
&
http://news.usni.org/2015/03/10/documen ... the-argmeu (PDF 2.3Mb)
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23940
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post11 Mar 2015, 09:34

Another SCALPingDEcapitator:
Re-Shaping Distributed Operations: The Tanking Dimension
10 Mar 2015 SLDinfo

"In an interesting piece published in the Air and Space Power Journal, Dr. Robert C. Owen takes a look at how to rethink tanking support for deployed forces....

...Technology is emerging which can allow for innovations in C2 to allow for distributed operations, and new air platforms such as the F-35 and the Osprey certainly facilitate dispersal and aggregation of force....

...In the Pacific, the Aussies and Singaporeans are adding up to 13 new KC-30A tankers, the tanker of choice in the current Iraq operations, and the new A400M is coming to the Pacific as well and can perform lift and tanking functions as well and can be considered part of rethinking distributed operations in an area like the Pacific.

And it is also the case that the deployment of significant numbers of A330MRTT tankers in the Middle East allows the GCC states to operate a flying air base to support various nations combat capabilities.

The deployment of such capabilities broaden significantly the assets available for the tanking of allied air forces, and of course, tankers can land and provide fuel for land based systems as well.

Owens develops a concept of sea land basing of tanking support, somewhat like a spider’s web concept....

http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... Forces.pdf (255Kb) Main Artikle mentioned
&
http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... d-Ops1.pdf (225Kb) this artickle

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/re-shaping-distr ... dimension/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1923
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post11 Mar 2015, 11:39

Analysis is too simplistic. Need to identify how many tankers are required to be deployed at what sortie rates which determines the logistical scope before deciding on the appropriateness of an SLB ship (or air expeditionary force).

If main concept is to enable tactical fighter refuel. Makes sense instead to use a major airport like Manila which already have the fuel logistics in place instead of a small airfield with limited fuel resource and likely significant resupply restrictions. You can have a port nearby but with no ground tankers to take the fuel to the airport = no use. Also important is the ramp size, runway strength etc to support the actual aircraft and crew. If you look at current logistics, all major logistic nodes use major airports due to infrastructure benefits.

Putting in just tankers is also questionable i.e. no escort? So a flanker eg from China which can go 1000nm will then take out the base and there goes all the tankers. I think the marine concept of distributed logistics differs from the main thrust of the article i.e. towards small deployments of tactical fighters with adequate logistics support but close to the fight with constant redeployments to changing FARP locations.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23940
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post11 Mar 2015, 20:40

Can only guess at what else is in this article (no subscription) but I'll put it here anyway.... I thought a lot of this bombast about 'how bad the USMC have been because they wanted what BS says' below has been answered before in various posts on this forum such as the USAF required a single engine but BS likes to think he can bad mouth STOVL and the Marines - you go girl. :devil: He is on his own mission for sure. :mrgreen:
Opinion: Ambitious Marine Plans For F-35B Should Be Tested Early Marines’ Stovl plans should be tested early
12 Mar 2015 Bill Sweetman Aviation Week & Space Technology

"The Lockheed Martin F-35B, the short-takeoff, vertical-landing (Stovl) version of the Joint Strike Fighter, has the shortest range and the smallest payload of the three variants. It’s also the most expensive. The Stovl and carrier shipboard requirements determined the F-35’s wingspan and length, dictated the use of a single engine and drove the internal ­layout of the fuselage. U.S. Marine Corps leaders have been confident that the F-35B alone will deliver strategic options..."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion ... sted-early
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post11 Mar 2015, 22:07

um, no

If you look at all the Pre-JSF programs (CALF/MRF/ASTOVL/Etc but not the larger fighters such as A/F-X) that existed in each service (and therefore should be optimized for that service) you will see that a vast majority of ALL the proposals were single engine (even for the Navy).
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6154
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post12 Mar 2015, 16:27

spazsinbad wrote:Can only guess at what else is in this article (no subscription) but I'll put it here anyway.... I thought a lot of this bombast about 'how bad the USMC have been because they wanted what BS says' below has been answered before in various posts on this forum such as the USAF required a single engine but BS likes to think he can bad mouth STOVL and the Marines - you go girl. :devil: He is on his own mission for sure. :mrgreen:
Opinion: Ambitious Marine Plans For F-35B Should Be Tested Early Marines’ Stovl plans should be tested early
12 Mar 2015 Bill Sweetman Aviation Week & Space Technology

"The Lockheed Martin F-35B, the short-takeoff, vertical-landing (Stovl) version of the Joint Strike Fighter, has the shortest range and the smallest payload of the three variants. It’s also the most expensive. The Stovl and carrier shipboard requirements determined the F-35’s wingspan and length, dictated the use of a single engine and drove the internal ­layout of the fuselage. U.S. Marine Corps leaders have been confident that the F-35B alone will deliver strategic options..."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion ... sted-early



What an a$$, no surprise though
Choose Crews
Offline

bring_it_on

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 929
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014, 14:32

Unread post12 Mar 2015, 16:54

spazsinbad wrote:Can only guess at what else is in this article



No more guessing ..;)

Opinion: Ambitious Marine Plans For F-35B Should Be Tested Early (Preferably by the author ;) )

The Lockheed MartinF-35B, the short-takeoff, vertical-landing (Stovl) version of the Joint Strike Fighter, has the shortest range and the smallest payload of the three variants. It’s also the most expensive. The Stovl and carrier shipboard requirements determined the F-35’s wingspan and length, dictated the use of a single engine and drove the internal ­layout of the fuselage.
U.S. Marine Corps leaders have been confident that the F-35B alone will deliver strategic options that justify its price and impact on the Air Force and Navy versions. That’s a tall order. A Marine expeditionary force is organized around a single amphibious warfare ship, a Landing Helicopter Dock or a Landing Helicopter Assault. These are big warships but they also carry Marines, their equipment and helicopters. Normally, the air combat element includes just six AV-8B Harriers, and no force of six aircraft has won a war yet.

The idea behind the Marine Harrier force always has been that it can expand beyond the ship’s capacity, by using shore bases that other fighters cannot reach: short civilian runways or even stretches of road. This kind of operation has been performed by the Marines, in combat, exactly three times in the 40-year history of the Harrier force.

The question today is simple: What scenario can we contemplate where you need supersonic, stealthy multirole fighters, but you don’t need the full carrier air wing? In the past few months, the Marines have rolled out some potential answers.

Corps Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford told the House defense appropriations subcommittee in late February that a shipboard detachment of 4-8 F-35Bs would deliver “the same kind of access” in “high-risk regions” as a joint strike package today that would include “cruise missiles, fighter aircraft, electronic-warfare platforms, aircraft which specialize in suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses, and strike aircraft.” The F-35 detachment is “a Day-One, full-spectrum capability against the most critical and prohibitive threats,” Dunford said.

On land, the Marines would use a new concept of operations known as distributed Stovl operations (DSO), according to Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, deputy commandant for aviation. The idea behind DSO is to obtain the advantages of forward-basing—deeper reach and faster response—while keeping people, aircraft and equipment on the ground safe from counter-attack from threats that are likely to include guided tactical ballistic missiles.

Mobility is the key. The plan calls for mobile forward-arming and refueling points (M-Farp) that can be moved around the theater inside the adversary’s targeting cycle—assumed to be 24-48 hr.—so they can survive without active missile defense. Decoy M-Farp would be established to complicate the targeting problem.

Dunford’s eight-aircraft detachment would be kept busy sustaining combat air patrols, providing over-the-horizon intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), and performing close air support and strike. Britain’s new aircraft carriers are 70,000-ton ships because the operations analysts calculated that a stand-alone air wing would need 24 aircraft to cover those missions.

Without a carrier, Dunford’s force has no persistent ISR or airborne early warning (AEW)—and any nation qualifying as a high-risk threat will have antiship cruise missiles (ASCM) on fast attack craft, on trucks or masked in commercial containers. AEW was invented because by the time ASCM or kamikazes appear on the horizon, it’s too late.

DSO sounds like an adventure in logistics. The Marines’ biggest off-base Harrier operation, in 1991 during Desert Storm, was supported by 45 8,000-gal. tanker trucks, and the ­F-35B is more than twice the Harrier’s size. Davis envisages that in some cases, the M-Farp will be supplied by KC-130J tankers, but each of their sorties will deliver five F-35B-loads of fuel at best. As was finally confirmed in the run-up to last year’s Farnborough air show (AW&ST May 26, 2014, p. 15), the F-35’s exhaust is tough on runways; many tons of metal planking will be needed to protect poor-quality runways or roads, even in a rolling vertical landing. It will have to be moved on the same cycle as the rest of the M-Farp.

Force protection could be a challenge. The M-Farp will need either a huge sanitized zone or its own active defense against rockets, mortars and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, which no practical decoy or jammer will distract from the F-35B’s exhaust.

These ambitious operational concepts should be tested, in force-level exercises against an aggressive and independent Red team, before we get much further into the $48 billion F-35B procurement. There could be no better use for the first F-35B squadron, once Marine leaders declare it ready for combat later this year.

Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5491
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post12 Mar 2015, 18:40

His whole argument pretty much falls on it's face right here:

"The question today is simple: What scenario can we contemplate where you need supersonic, stealthy multirole fighters, but you don’t need the full carrier air wing? In the past few months, the Marines have rolled out some potential answers."

When the carriers have better things to do. Why tie up a carrier if 8 F-35s (or 20) would be sufficient?


"These ambitious operational concepts should be tested, in force-level exercises against an aggressive and independent Red team, before we get much further into the $48 billion F-35B procurement. There could be no better use for the first F-35B squadron, once Marine leaders declare it ready for combat later this year. "


Sure Bill. Let's do that with every air base in the UK and get rid of all of their Typhoons when the bases fail under equal circumstances. Game? I didn't think so.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

bring_it_on

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 929
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014, 14:32

Unread post12 Mar 2015, 19:06

He has some opportunities to ask questions about tactical deployment or mission requirements when he has a chance to actually attend one of the speakers familiar on the matter. The last I remember was when he could pose technical questions to General Mike Hostage, instead he chose to make a statement on acquisition (to the ACC boss rather than to say a Frank Kendall or Ash Carter) by quoting Norm augustine. I think he has given up asking questions and getting answers and leaves that to other editors for the publication. His job seems to be pretty much split between speculation and ranting.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23940
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 Mar 2015, 20:49

:mrgreen: Fanks 'brung_it_off' :mrgreen: BS has for sure gone off the deep end with this (SeaBasing involves a large number of diverse ships providing support to the ARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (ARG/MEU) Talk about a hissy fit '6 not won a war' for gorrsake.
"...A Marine expeditionary force is organized around a single amphibious warfare ship, a Landing Helicopter Dock or a Landing Helicopter Assault. These are big warships but they also carry Marines, their equipment and helicopters. Normally, the air combat element includes just six AV-8B Harriers, and no force of six aircraft has won a war yet...."

Then billybobboy goes to completely ignore seabasing - a cretin indeed given that he has explained seabasing (in part) in an earlier article. If an USMC General can talk to Sol recently at SNAFU then BS is really in the shitcan with NOTHING from USMC. :doh: :mrgreen: :devil: OMFTS Operational Maneuver from the Sea y'all. Aircraft will hop about - mostly from their seabase whilst the very temporary M-FARPs are just that. Try STOM Ship to Objective Maneuver also.

And the F-35B is bad for ordinary runways when doing a VL - who said anything about the other 'running landing modes'?
"...the F-35’s exhaust is tough on runways; many tons of metal planking will be needed to protect poor-quality runways or roads, even in a rolling vertical landing....
&
...These ambitious operational concepts should be tested, in force-level exercises against an aggressive and independent Red team, before we get much further into the $48 billion F-35B procurement. There could be no better use for the first F-35B squadron, once Marine leaders declare it ready for combat later this year."

<sarc on> I guess the gyrenes will just have to leap to attention SIR YES SIR to follow the brilliant suggestion of BS eh. :doh: <sarc off>

Over the last several years the BOLD ALLIGATOR exercises have been doing this (with simulated F-35s of course) AND it has been done FROM THE SEA no less. BillyBoBboy is the dill et tente here NOT the USMC - they are professionals.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

archeman

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 713
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post12 Mar 2015, 22:45

"The question today is simple: What scenario can we contemplate where you need supersonic, stealthy multirole fighters, but you don’t need the full carrier air wing? In the past few months, the Marines have rolled out some potential answers."

Better to:
HAVE and not always NEED.

Seems Bill is suggesting the Marines would be better off with
NEED and not EVER HAVE.
Daddy why do we have to hide? Because we use VI son, and they use windows.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7717
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post13 Mar 2015, 00:29

bring_it_on wrote:He has some opportunities to ask questions about tactical deployment or mission requirements when he has a chance to actually attend one of the speakers familiar on the matter. The last I remember was when he could pose technical questions to General Mike Hostage, instead he chose to make a statement on acquisition (to the ACC boss rather than to say a Frank Kendall or Ash Carter) by quoting Norm augustine. I think he has given up asking questions and getting answers and leaves that to other editors for the publication. His job seems to be pretty much split between speculation and ranting.

Yeah, and got slapped down in front of his peers. LOL.. like shooting fish in a barrel for the former ACC Chief. :D
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

bring_it_on

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 929
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014, 14:32

Unread post13 Mar 2015, 00:47

The problem is some of his older work on reporting technical capabilities is extremely impressive. He isn't gaining any fan following or any significant audience by doing the sort of reporting he is doing now. He is also taking a confrontational posture with stealth, VHF radars and EW as if his assessment is more precise, informed or technically comprehensive than the intel and threat assessments done by the DOD. What is is essentially doing in that argument is regurgitating brochure information or what has been 'claimed' by radar makers during air-shows.

His earlier work was informative, unfortunately the recent stuff is pure garbage, and offers technical "opinion" and critique when he has absolutely no technical qualification to talk about either. It is as bad as when beat reporters start talking about the IMF and economic policy :). Not only is he outright hostile but he has obviously had public spat with Lockheed that got him disciplined from his employer.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/254885620/F-22-Janes1997
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2914
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post13 Mar 2015, 15:08

"Can only guess at what else is in this article (no subscription) but I'll put it here anyway.... I thought a lot of this bombast about 'how bad the USMC have been because they wanted what BS says' below has been answered before in various posts on this forum such as the USAF required a single engine but BS likes to think he can bad mouth STOVL and the Marines - you go girl. :devil: He is on his own mission for sure. :mrgreen:"

Appears he's on someone else's mission. Perhaps even a fool's errand.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests