Marines F-35 reset

[ricnunes]

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)

This, absolutely this!

[spazsinbad]

Overpage missing WEBp image: "and also carry this:" https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f ... dc32e.webp I don't think this forum does WEBP in IE 11 - other browsers WEBp LIVES!

[aussiebloke]

This isn't a cut per se...

I am struggling to see how this recent announcement of reducing all Marine F-35B squadrons to ten aircraft can be anything other than a significant cut in numbers.

There will be just 18 active component fighter attack (VFMA) squadrons

There is no plan for additional Marine F-35C squadrons: just 14 F-35B squadrons and 4 F-35C squadrons.
Nine of those fourteen F-35B squadrons were intended to have 16 aircraft each and will now have ten.

This is surely a total reduction of 54 F-35Bs in the active component.

If this isn’t a cut what am I missing?

This reduction may in part be driven by pilot shortages. General Berger in his Force Design 2030 document on page 8 states:

I am not convinced that we have a clear understanding yet of F-35 capacity requirements for the future force. As a result, the Service will seek at least one external assessment of our Aviation Plan relative to NDS objectives and evolving naval and joint warfighting concepts.
As described in Congressional testimony, our continued pilot shortfalls are a factor we must consider and either scale programs of record accordingly or implement a sustainable, affordable solution. Other Services face similar shortfalls. This issue has recruiting, training, and retention factors – as well as fiscal and industrial base factors – that we must consider in reconciling the growing disparity between numbers of platforms and numbers of aircrew.

https://news.usni.org/2020/03/26/docume ... more-74799

[spazsinbad]

USMC Force Design 2030 PDF Attached below: [I wonder now about virus affected airlines DOWNsizing affecting retention]

[USMC] Force Design 2030
March 2020 USMC

"BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT
This report describes the progress of the Marine Corps on my watch in preparing for the sweeping changes needed to meet the principal challenges facing the institution: effectively playing our role as the nation’s naval expeditionary force-in-readiness, while simultaneously modernizing the force in accordance with the National Defense Strategy (NDS) – and doing both within the fiscal resources we are provided. A certain degree of institutional change is inevitable when confronting modernization on this scale, and that type of change is hard. As such, I want to be clear up front: our force design effort is a work in progress. Thanks to the dedication and effort of a great many Marines, Sailors, and civilians over the last six months, we have come to a clearer understanding of some force design changes we can confidently make today, while identifying other areas that require additional analysis. This reports explains, at length and in some detail, my argument for change, our force design methodology and organization, my personal assessment of the work to date, and the steps we are taking to move the force design effort into the next phase."...

…Air Combat Element
• 18 active component fighter attack (VMFA) squadrons, with a reduction in the number of aircraft per squadron to 10...

…Retention of 18 VMFA squadrons
Employment of the F-35 in support of future naval expeditionary TACAIR requirements requires additional study, as I noted previously. We will continue to learn more about the various roles that platform will fulfill, and we must be willing to assess and adjust our VMFA force structure and program of record accordingly. In addition, as noted earlier, our continued inability to build and sustain an adequate inventory of F-35 pilots leads me to conclude that we must be pragmatic regarding our ability to support the existing program-of-record. We must conduct a more thorough review of our VMFA capacity requirements and ability to satisfy those requirements. This will require an external review of the issue that will inform our subsequent decisions.

Source: https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... and-II.pdf (346Kb)

[ricnunes]

Overpage missing WEBp image: "and also carry this:" https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f ... dc32e.webp I don't think this forum does WEBP in IE 11 - other browsers WEBp LIVES!

That's strange because on my end there's no problem (I can see the image while opening that page).

[spazsinbad]

Overpage missing WEBp image: "and also carry this:" https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f ... dc32e.webp I don't think this forum does WEBP in IE 11 - other browsers WEBp LIVES!

That's strange because on my end there's no problem (I can see the image while opening that page).

What web browser are you using? ASLO (I KNOW) remember that HOT freekin'Linkin' does not work a lot of times these days so images must be saved to your computer then uploaded here as attachments. Extra work? (I KNOW ASLO).

[quicksilver]

Force structure is not something one turns on and off with a spigot. Can’t meet the ends of the new security strategy? Ask for more resources...first. Pilot shortfalls are cyclic and a thin gruel to use as justification for cutting force structure.

I’m still wrestling with the question of how they think they can ’shrink themselves to greatness.’ ‘We have a big challenge...let’s reduce the size, capability and capacity of the service to meet that challenge, and announce to its principal focus our plans and operational concepts for doing so.‘ Huh?

What exactly is the role of ‘naval infantry’ in this new scheme and how does reducing infantry battalions support it? What capacity is resident in the resulting force and how does it meet rotational demand?

[ricnunes]

What web browser are you using?

Google Chrome.

[spazsinbad]

As I have explained for three other browsers that IE 11 has a problem with WEBf.

[weasel1962]

Thanks Spaz for the report. Per 2019 aviation plan, the active F-35 USMC sqn comprised 9 x 16B, 5 x 16B and 4 x 16C sqn or 18 active sqn. That means 194 F-35Bs in the active sqn inventory which will drop to 140. A cut of 54 or 28% drop. This is ironically this is the same amount as the Japan (42) and Singapore (4+8) buys so this may not affect LM projected build rates if limited to just this.

If proportionately the number of BAI, training and attrition reserves are consequently reduced by 28%, that means a further cut of 38, meaning as many as 92 F-35Bs may be potentially be cut. This implies a program total of as low as 261 B. This will have an impact to build rates if the cuts include these.

171 B would have been funded by FY 21. If confirmed, that means ~90 remaining or a remaining buy rate of roughly 10 a year until FY30 i.e. same as FY 21 buy rate.

Biggest impact may be on those 4-5 B sqn that have already transitioned or transitioning. Applying a proportion of 10/16 x estab of 311 (for 16B sqn) means a cut of more than 100 personnel per 16B sqn (accounting for 400-500 of the 12000). This can alternatively accelerate 2-3 B sqn formation earlier as excess Bs are transferred to the other sqns due for conversion.

Will also wait for upcoming USMC aviation plans. If confirmed, this should reflect in the FY 22 budget also.

[quicksilver]

Duplicate

[weasel1962]

It should actually read 9 x 16B, 5 x 10B and 4 x 10C. Thanks for spotting.

9*16 + 5*10 = 194.

[quicksilver]

“...the active F-35 USMC sqn comprised 9 x 16B, 5 x 16B and 4 x 16C...”

Huh? Do you mean 9x16B, 5x10B and 4x10C, right?

“This will have an impact to build rates if the cuts include these.”

Not necessarily; it may just truncate the number of years the USMC buys jets in the long run.

“Biggest impact may be on those 4-5 B sqn that have already transitioned or transitioning. Applying a proportion of 10/16 x estab of 311 (for 16B sqn) means a cut of more than 100 personnel per 16B sqn (accounting for 400-500 of the 12000). This can alternatively accelerate 2-3 B sqn formation earlier as excess Bs are transferred to the other sqns due for conversion.“

Do we know how many jets those squadrons already have on-hand today? Squadrons in transition do not have to receive their full complement of jets before another starts receiving its jets. WRT personnel, T/Os and Staffing Goals are wildly different and it is rare to have a full T/O on hand during anything but wartime or a deployment.

One of biggest flaws of the whole ‘Force Design’ seems to be the assumption that his charity in one color of money gains him more funds in another color of money. It just doesn’t work that way. Giving up jets doesn’t get him more rifles and pistols or vehicles, or whatever green dollar thing he wants to buy. Additionally, it is ‘terminally curious‘ how anyone who thinks they have a recruiting and retention problem in a given aircraft community would leave open to question the future of that community for that very reason. It becomes self-fulfilling.

[mixelflick]

Everything I'm reading sure sounds like a cut to Marine Corps capabilities. Hard to see a force geared to island hopping going into Iran, or even worse - N. Korea. I think the Corps was already on the right track (more numerous, smaller carriers) and other ships that are F-35B capable. It will add a magnificent air defense/air superiority capability the Marines formerly lacked. Sorry, but Harriers with AMRAAM's and legacy Hornets didn't inspire visions of Marines on the ground, safe and sound.
With the F-35B/C, all of that changes.

But having that "steel umbrella" over you is only good if.... there's something to cover. I'm not sure divesting yourself of all MBT's and artillery makes sense? Aren't the Marines the first in, because they're so tough??

I thought that's how it worked, but now I'm not sure. If they get the nod tomorrow to roll into Iran and capture XYZ city/military base/target - what are they planning on doing it with? They can't fly all of them in with helicopters and V-22's..

[ricnunes]

As I have explained for three other browsers that IE 11 has a problem with WEBf.

Ok I get it, IE11 doesn't support .webp images, correct?

I'll try not forget that next time!

Anyway, I found the same image over the web (in another site) in .jpg format. However and unfortunately it has a lower resolution/size than the previous .webp image:


I could also convert the .webp image that I previous posted to .jpg for example and host and post it here but considering the image at hands I don't think that's necessary, do you?