Marines F-35 reset

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24785
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 17:25

We can go on and on about this - a JPG made from WEBf by me has been posted at the top of the previous page already.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1138
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 21:12

Hm dumping M1A1 will make those guys very happy:
https://youtu.be/fhF5YALpaFA?t=56
(lower your sound)
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1410
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 22:09

quicksilver wrote: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.

:wtf:


It's completely incoherent; that force design document also reads unlike just about any other
USMC doctrinal/force structure document that's been promulgated.

Almost like they didn't write it or formulate the arguments. Did you get that sense?

The fighter capacity discussions sound like they are right out of OSD/CAPE talking points.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3139
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 22:52

Sounds like the product of think tank, studies and analysis crowd at Quantico. A substantive effort, ”process-derived“...

...and divorced from some of the realities of programming, budgets, and the politics of the building. Conspicuously gives up actual forces and capabilities for conceptual vaporware. Provides no hedging against uncertainty and is unclear about forces to meet rotational demands of GNFPP.

Tough time to be in uniform.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3139
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 23:02

“The fighter capacity discussions sound like they are right out of OSD/CAPE talking points.“

Shack. Betcha the external entity referred to wrt the capacity question will in-fact, be CAPE, thereby ceding the future of his FW force structure to yet another tribe of analysts (which have periodically made clear their views wrt F-35 in general, and F-35B specifically). I am reminded of an instance back in the day when David Chu essentially offered the USMC H-60s for all but free if they would only drop pursuit of V-22.

Wanna guess what it will be this time?
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2767
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 23:15

spazsinbad wrote:We can go on and on about this - a JPG made from WEBf by me has been posted at the top of the previous page already.


Ok, for some some reason, I didn't think that the image that you re-posted was already converted to .jpg! I really feel stupid! :oops: :doh:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2767
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 23:22

milosh wrote:Hm dumping M1A1 will make those guys very happy:
https://youtu.be/fhF5YALpaFA?t=56
(lower your sound)


Humm, I definitely wouldn't like to face M1A1's (this not to mention more modern and improved versions such as the M1A2 SEP) on those Chinese things, that's for sure!
i.e. the 105 main gun of those ZTD-05 vehicles will most likely tickle the M1A1's armour :roll:
So it's probably the opposite: those ZTD-05's would make the M1A1 guys very happy :wink:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2429
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post28 Mar 2020, 01:22

That's why it's easiest just to sell the Taiwanese more m1s. No need to amphib land. No need to spend moolah to maintain and crew. Same impact to the ZTDs.
Offline

commisar

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2018, 21:56

Unread post28 Mar 2020, 03:33

quicksilver wrote: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?


The USMC seems to be trying to morph into Naval light mechanized infantry with no AFV with a gun bigger than 30mm, almost no howitzers, fewer aircraft and lots of paper airplane UCAVs that don't exist....
Offline

commisar

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2018, 21:56

Unread post28 Mar 2020, 03:40

weasel1962 wrote: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.



Gucci super ATGMs won't exactly be common. Are those C-130s going to be launching off of the LHDs? A C-130 is hilariously vulnerable to AAA and MANPADS, let one hostile jets and big SAMs. It also means the C-130 needs a friendly airstrip relatively close to the battlespace.

Each HIMARS has 6 or fewer shots before it has to reload. It's rockets Carey massive warheads that have a pretty big CEP and large blast radius.

This leaves the USMC vehicle fleet with nothing bigger than 30mm.....

Better pray the other guy doesn't have armor your ATGM can't get through or APS...
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2429
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post28 Mar 2020, 07:21

C-130s won't land in places where there are manpads. Agreed. Longer range means the further back the himars can be.

As to cep, they don't dub the himars as the 70km sniper for nothing. Only 70 being inaccurate cos it's way more today and even more tomorrow.

Fight under air cover. No enemy tank will survive a 500lb-er or stormbreaker, aps or not.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1138
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post28 Mar 2020, 08:28

ricnunes wrote:Humm, I definitely wouldn't like to face M1A1's (this not to mention more modern and improved versions such as the M1A2 SEP) on those Chinese things, that's for sure!
i.e. the 105 main gun of those ZTD-05 vehicles will most likely tickle the M1A1's armour :roll:
So it's probably the opposite: those ZTD-05's would make the M1A1 guys very happy :wink:


Marines are erasing M1 so they will not have them, that is why I wrote those Chicom marines would be quite happy. Relying on air power to do everything is nonsense.

Also marines would need armor in smaller conflicts (like Iraq) and they will not have it.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2767
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post28 Mar 2020, 15:27

milosh wrote:Marines are erasing M1 so they will not have them, that is why I wrote those Chicom marines would be quite happy. Relying on air power to do everything is nonsense.

Also marines would need armor in smaller conflicts (like Iraq) and they will not have it.


Oops, I misunderstood your last post, so please accept my appologies. :oops:

Yes, I fully agree with what you wrote above.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6449
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post28 Mar 2020, 15:39

blain wrote:
There you go. More Cs, less Bs. The Cs have more range and more payload. A much better fit for slugging it out at range against a near peer threat.




Central to Berger’s vision is the ability to operate within an adversary’s (read China’s) bubble of air, missile, and naval power (which the Marine Corps calls the weapons engagement zone, or WEZ). The concept is that the Marine Corps will be a “stand-in force” that will operate within this WEZ, not a stand-off force that must start outside and fight its way in. As the guidance states: “Stand-in forces [are] optimized to operate in close and confined seas in defiance of adversary long-range precision ‘stand-off capabilities.’”

Wow you called it alright. :mrgreen:
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2767
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post28 Mar 2020, 15:43

weasel1962 wrote:That's why it's easiest just to sell the Taiwanese more m1s. No need to amphib land. No need to spend moolah to maintain and crew. Same impact to the ZTDs.


And then again, you're talking about a defensive point-of-view.

What about when or if the Marines need to take the offensive (for example to take an island occupied by Chinese forces equipped with MBTs or vehicles with large caliber guns)?
Remember that the Marines are a first response force so the probability of having to take up a well entrenched and armed enemy is very high (we just need to look at history in order to notice this).

And one also have to remember that MBTs are BY FAR the best weapon if you need to assault a well entrenched and armed enemy position. Reasons for this is that a modern MBT is almost or basically impervious to the vast majority of weapons available on the ground.
Even against the most powerful weapons available on the ground which are modern ATGMs and big caliber tank guns, a modern MBT has a reasonably good probability of surviving a hit from these weapons specially if hit on its frontal arc/aspect and even if any of such weapons (modern ATGMs or big caliber tank guns) manages to knock out or destroy an opposing modern MBT then the chances that the tank crew will survive is very or quite high. This is nothing that a lighter armored vehicle such as an IFV can do or withstand!

Anyway, everytime that someone decides to get rid of MBTs this has proven to be a wrong and stupid decision.
“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 3 guests