Marines F-35 reset

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

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6413
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post25 Mar 2020, 04:27

quicksilver wrote:“The proposed reductions are meant to make the Corps lighter and more nimble to fight China in a 21st century version of the Pacific island hopping campaign during World War II," Berger said in an interview with Gordon.“

Someone has confused a theater-specific task organization for a service force structure.


This was far better than I put it.

The USMC is the United states force in readiness. Its not "china or bust" and more to the point, the US has since World War II (praise be upon it) maintained the strategic notion of always fighting a 2 front war simultaneously. If theres anything the last 20 years has taught us its that we don't get to pick where we play, and we don't always have enough pieces to play how we want already. we had the Surge in Afghanistan at the same time the Libya games started and that required serious juggling with a larger force and the Japan disaster relief.

You don't get to be "America's 911 force", but only pick up when the caller ID says "China"

I've actually never seen such single mindedness in my lifetime regarding the USMC, not even during the cold war.

Right down to "tanks?" useless! because in a war against China you'll never need those!

Image

even world war 2 had tanks.
Choose Crews
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3058
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post25 Mar 2020, 04:45

“The USMC is the United states force in readiness. Its not "china or bust" and more to the point, the US has since World War II (praise be upon it) maintained the strategic notion of always fighting a 2 front war simultaneously. If theres anything the last 20 years has taught us its that we don't get to pick where we play, and we don't always have enough pieces to play how we want already. we had the Surge in Afghanistan at the same time the Libya games started and that required serious juggling with a larger force and the Japan disaster relief.

You don't get to be "America's 911 force", but only pick up when the caller ID says "China" “

Agree.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1123
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post25 Mar 2020, 05:27

quicksilver wrote:This unilateral donation of budget share, end strength and capability is premature and this CMC will learn the hard way that he will get no credit for these actions when the next budget drill happens in the wake of fiscal stimulus.

“But I gave up 20% of my TOA back in 2020.” (‘TOA’ is ‘total obligation authority’)

“Thank you, but it is now 2022 (...or whenever). Give us 40% and we’ll call it done.”


The Navy has recently been complaining about the 1/3rd division of the DoD budget being inadequate.
Since the Navy isn't likely to get relief there, Green is going to be the bill payer for Blue.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6718
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post25 Mar 2020, 06:11

marauder2048 wrote:
quicksilver wrote:This unilateral donation of budget share, end strength and capability is premature and this CMC will learn the hard way that he will get no credit for these actions when the next budget drill happens in the wake of fiscal stimulus.

“But I gave up 20% of my TOA back in 2020.” (‘TOA’ is ‘total obligation authority’)

“Thank you, but it is now 2022 (...or whenever). Give us 40% and we’ll call it done.”


The Navy has recently been complaining about the 1/3rd division of the DoD budget being inadequate.
Since the Navy isn't likely to get relief there, Green is going to be the bill payer for Blue.



Same bill......(i.e. United States Department of the Navy)
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24505
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post25 Mar 2020, 06:31

IIRC 'QS' has said there is a tranche for the USN and one for the USMC in this DoN pot of money. Apologies if NOT 'QS'. :roll:
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3058
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post25 Mar 2020, 08:08

spazsinbad wrote:IIRC 'QS' has said there is a tranche for the USN and one for the USMC in this DoN pot of money. Apologies if NOT 'QS'. :roll:


There used to be BISOG — ‘blue in support of green’ — most prominently for aviation. IOW, money for USMC funding priorities had to be negotiated annually with the Navy, resulting in perpetual fun and games the character of which was known to occasionally destroy decades-long personal/professional relationships that dated from plebe summer at USNA. That changed a few years ago. Now the supplication is to SecNav.

There isn’t much money in the USMC apart from aviation and manpower.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1123
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post25 Mar 2020, 08:48

quicksilver wrote:There isn’t much money in the USMC apart from aviation and manpower.


And shipbuilding. And all are being cut.

In exchange for...uhm..wait until the FY2022 budget.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3058
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post25 Mar 2020, 08:49

marauder2048 wrote:
quicksilver wrote:There isn’t much money in the USMC apart from aviation and manpower.


And shipbuilding. And all are being cut.

In exchange for...uhm..wait until the FY2022 budget.


Ships are blue dollars but I take your point.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2714
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post25 Mar 2020, 15:53

XanderCrews wrote:Right down to "tanks?" useless! because in a war against China you'll never need those!


even world war 2 had tanks.



That's downright stupid if you ask me!

Getting rid of tanks is a wrong decision and everytime that anyone said that Tanks aren't useful for future warfare those same people were proven to be wrong.
The Canadians learned this the hard war in Afghanistan. Everyone at the time was saying that Tanks were useless in future warfare specially in asymmetrical counter-insurgency wars such as Afghanistan, mainly because of the failure of Soviet tanks in that same scenario during the 1980's but guess what? As opposed to those Soviet tanks, modern tanks have advanced optics (which gives modern tanks in many cases an even better all around detection capabilities and range compared to infantry soldiers), more precise and longer ranged weapons (namely the main gun) and much better protections/armor.
In Afghanistan and at the time the Canadians which were about to replace their Tanks with more mobile and lightly armored vehicles soon learned that Tanks were one of the best assets that they could have in Afghanistan because of their much better protection (for example they could withstand with the most powerful IEDs, this not to mentioned other weapons such as RPGs), better off-road mobility, much more powerful and precise weapon in the form of the main gun (which has a longer range and is just a precise as the most powerful sniper rifles) bundled with great optics/sensors.
Anyway, the end result was that Canada abandoned the "replacing Tanks with more mobile and lightly armored vehicles" plan and as opposed, one of the most advanced Tanks available at the time (Leopard 2) was procured to replace the existing tanks (updated Leopard 1's). But then again, this "wise decision" wasn't made because someone in the upper hierarchy was smart to realize this but instead this decision was made based on spilled blood or more precisely based on Canadian soldier's lives lost which and otherwise and with tanks could have been saved.

I'm afraid that the same will happen with the USMC is such decision is to go ahead.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2335
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post26 Mar 2020, 01:45

That's why its a hard choice. Getting rid of MBT means going the airborne route. First responders. Lighter=easier to control/manage the logistical trail where potential aggressors are targeting. Tanks require fuel besides ammo. MBT fuel usage is probably higher than the other vehicles.

Why this is a logistics driven strategy can also be seen from how it applies to tube arty. Tube arty requires the most logistics because of the arty shells. Going precision only with himars means a significant drop in the logistics tail requirements. Can even do shoot and scoot with C-130s.

I suspect there will be some movement to integrate NLOS ATGMs as well, which are way above the hit reach of MBTs to offset the firepower impact.

Logistics, logistics, logistics.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24505
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post26 Mar 2020, 05:45

I was reluctant to 'read between the lines' earlier because often I don't understand USspeak as she is spaken in me ears.
OR...
Garrett Reim COULD BE TODALLY RONG and a DANCING FOOL.
Why the US Marine Corps plans big downsizing, including some F-35s, MV-22s and all tanks
25 Mar 2020 Garrett Reim

"...The Lockheed Martin F-35B/C would suffer its first programme of record reduction in its history. “The Marine Corps will reduce the Primary Aircraft Authorized per squadron of F-35B and C aircraft from 16 to 10,” says the USMC.

The Marine Corps had planned to buy a total of 420 F-35s (353 F-35Bs and 67 F35Cs) by 2031. The service did not respond to request for details on how much its programme of record would be cut, but Cancian [Mark Cancian, a retired US Marine and senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies International Security Program] says the reduction numbers can be inferred"….

...Regarding possible programme cuts, Lockheed Martin... declined to comment and referred questions to the USMC...."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/wh ... 13.article
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6718
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post26 Mar 2020, 07:58

Honestly, the spin never ends......... :shock:


This isn't a cut per se...The USMC is just going to buy more F-35C's short-term to catch up! So, they shift orders from F-35B's to F-35C's. They do this in part by cutting the larger 16 aircraft squadrons to 10. As many already operate with that number....(as do Carrier based F-35C Squadrons)

The USMC operate F-35B Squadrons of 10 and 16 aircraft. With the latter deploying on LHA/LHD with usually just a flight of 6 aircraft. While, the other 10 stay at home....


USMCT.png



This from last year....


QUOTE:

Marines Accelerating F-35C Procurement to Support Carrier Deployments; F-35B Buys Would Slow

"With the Marine Corps on the hook for some of the planned F-35C carrier strike group deployments, “we rebalanced this year with more Cs – just really more to catch up."

"The Marine Corps hasn’t changed how many of each variant it plans to buy, but the new emphasis on F-35Cs and a slowing of F-35Bs will allow the small service to keep up with the latest squadron transition and deployment plans."

"Marine Corps spokesman Capt. Christopher Harrison told USNI News that, as part of the rebalance in the FY 2020 budget request, “the Marine Corps increased its procurement of F-35Cs over the FYDP from 19 to 28 F-35Cs to ensure the service would be able to transition its F-35C squadrons on schedule. Specifically, the Marine Corps increased its F-35C procurement in 2020 to ensure TACAIR Integration (TAI) F-35C Squadrons make their planned transition and timeline for deployment. The Corps’ approved Program of Record remains 353 F-35Bs and 67 F-35Cs.”

"To support accelerating F-35C acquisition, the Marines will decelerate F-35B procurement, “deferring several F-35B aircraft into future [low-rate initial production] contracts in order to balance concurrency management while taking advantage of emerging future technologies and capabilities,” Harrison said."

https://news.usni.org/2019/04/04/marine ... -buys-slow
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3058
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post26 Mar 2020, 11:02

POR procurement numbers are based, in part, on force structure. That means that when you alter the force structure — which formally assumes a specific PAA — you consequently alter the total procurement objective.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3058
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post26 Mar 2020, 13:59

https://www.csis.org/analysis/marine-co ... ward-china

“...The lack of hedging means that the Marine Corps will not field the broad set of capabilities it has in the past. It will be poorly structured to fight the kind of campaigns that it had to fight in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. The history of the last 70 years has been that the United States deters great power conflict and fights regional and stability conflicts. Although forces can adapt, as seen during the long counterinsurgency campaigns in the Middle East, there is a delay and an initial lack of expertise. The Marine Corps might plan to defer these conflicts to the Army, but that has not worked in the past. Army forces have been too small to keep the Marine Corps out of sustained ground combat.

Marine Corps officials have argued privately that other kinds of conflicts would be lesser included capabilities of this focus on high-end conflict in the Western Pacific. This is misplaced. History is littered with examples of militaries that prepared for one kind of conflict and then had to fight a very different kind of conflict. In the best circumstances, militaries adapt at the cost of time and blood. In the worst circumstances, the result is catastrophic failure.“. (my emphasis added)
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2714
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post26 Mar 2020, 17:56

weasel1962 wrote:Getting rid of MBT means going the airborne route.


But the Marines (USMC) are not an airborne force, they are an amphibious force whose mobility is based on ships like this:
Image

which can carry lots of this, including all the necessary fuel and ammo:
Image

and also carry this:
Image

which are able to deploy MBTs on many of the world's shorelines such as this:
Image
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests