Marines F-35 reset

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

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1066
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post28 Mar 2020, 19:17

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.


Taiwan is more less fu*k if China decide to invade, Chinese newest smart MLRS already cover whole island:

https://www.businessinsider.com/chinas- ... an-2019-12

Marines need some kind of heavy armor because of job they do, they go first in fire so relying on wheeled ifv is nonsense.

Also there is big problem in this island war doctrine, Chinese marines have light tanks which don't need hovercrafts, and to make things worse they can fire while in water. So if USMC succeed in taking some island, counter attack could be devastated if marines don't have air support.

They don't need M1 to counter ZTD, more then enough would be:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... wo-designs

But I don't see it USMC future plans.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2337
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post28 Mar 2020, 22:01

ricnunes wrote: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).


Why waste men attacking the strongpoints? Chop off their logistical tail whilst pounding this from the air. That's the essence of the island hopping strategy in ww2.

Take out the air defences, then the b-52 carpet rolls in. 30-60 days later, the marines mop up what's left. Exception being Taiwan where civvies come into play.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6414
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post28 Mar 2020, 22:19

quicksilver wrote: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.


To the first part yes.

To the second part yes

To the third part yes.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post28 Mar 2020, 23:07

weasel1962 wrote:Why waste men attacking the strongpoints? Chop off their logistical tail whilst pounding this from the air. That's the essence of the island hopping strategy in ww2.


And if we look at the "essence of the island hopping strategy in ww2" then we can realize that the Sherman tanks were crucial for the success of the vast majority of those scenarios.

weasel1962 wrote:Take out the air defences, then the b-52 carpet rolls in. 30-60 days later, the marines mop up what's left. Exception being Taiwan where civvies come into play.


Another thing that history of warfare tells us: You cannot take a well entrenched enemy (ground) position based solely on heavy airstrikes and artillery strikes. The same history of warfare tells us that a well trained, well entrenched and well equipped enemy force can and will withstand brutal Air and Artillery strikes and still remain an effective fighting force.
As such the best way to assault a well entrenched and equipped enemy force if by having MBTs spearheading the assault against those same enemy forces.
“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: 2714
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post28 Mar 2020, 23:17

milosh wrote:They don't need M1 to counter ZTD, more then enough would be:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... wo-designs

But I don't see it USMC future plans.


Here I have to completely disagree with you.

Light tanks after WWII have shown to be a "failed concept". And a US example of this is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M551_Sheridan

There are reasons why Light Tanks haven't got much of a 'traction' after WWII such as:
- Light Tanks aren't much more mobile compared to MBTs.
- But as opposed Light Tanks are much weaker (have a much weaker armor) compared to MBTs.

So and basically, MBTs have the same/similar mobility as Light Tanks but have much better armor and usually better weapons (better main gun).

IMO, a well armed IFV is a much better alternative to the Light Tank since it has basically the same/similar armor but being much more versatile (more "multi-role", if you will).
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

sunstersun

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 154
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2017, 06:50

Unread post29 Mar 2020, 03:30

weasel1962 wrote:
Another thing that history of warfare tells us: You cannot take a well entrenched enemy (ground) position based solely on heavy airstrikes and artillery strikes. The same history of warfare tells us that a well trained, well entrenched and well equipped enemy force can and will withstand brutal Air and Artillery strikes and still remain an effective fighting force.
As such the best way to assault a well entrenched and equipped enemy force if by having MBTs spearheading the assault against those same enemy forces.


History doesn't teach us everything. AI for example has no point of reference in history in modern warfare. Anyways, modern firepower is more than enough to knock out any entrenched enemy force on the ground that is out of supply/cut off.

The Japanese learned the firepower lesson and they stopped defending the landing zones because the naval fire was too great. Nowadays literally any cut off force will just get blasted and surrender in two seconds. The art of war has changed due to how much more deadly munitions and firepower is.

I'm not saying tanks are useless, but one reason they are useful now is the asymmetric aspects. If we're in a war against China, you blast anything that is military value even if there's civilians. It's like the whole reason it's hard to fight insurgents is because they blend with civs. In a pacific war it's blast anything that moves and that means tanks are too heavy to be useful. Gotta be light and maneuverable.

I think the marines got to invest in island defence capabilities. Just imagine if the marines at the start of the war could set up ship and air blockaids on uninhabited islands impromptu akin to Nimitz's Operation Starvation. It could win the Pacific War alone.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1066
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post29 Mar 2020, 10:52

ricnunes wrote:
Here I have to completely disagree with you.

Light tanks after WWII have shown to be a "failed concept". And a US example of this is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M551_Sheridan

There are reasons why Light Tanks haven't got much of a 'traction' after WWII such as:
- Light Tanks aren't much more mobile compared to MBTs.
- But as opposed Light Tanks are much weaker (have a much weaker armor) compared to MBTs.

So and basically, MBTs have the same/similar mobility as Light Tanks but have much better armor and usually better weapons (better main gun).


MBT need hovercraft to reach shore that is big problem.
Offline
User avatar

doge

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 16:07

Unread post29 Mar 2020, 14:52

:roll: :shrug:
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/03/sho ... -35-fleet/
Short On Pilots, Marines Debate Size Of F-35 Fleet
“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 program," Gen. David Berger says in a blunt new 10-year force design plan.
By PAUL MCLEARY on March 27, 2020 at 1:50 PM
WASHINGTON: The Marine Corps’ inability to recruit enough pilots has led the commandant to question the F-35’s place in the already budget-constrained Corps’ future plans, a potentially huge shift for the service that first fielded the Joint Strike Fighter and fought harder than any other service to build it and buy it.

“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 program,” Gen. David Berger says in a blunt new 10-year force design plan. He calls for an external assessment of the aircraft’s place within the service relative to what he’s being asked to do in the National Defense Strategy and the forthcoming Joint Warfighting Concept, a document the Joint Staff is expected to wrap up later this year.

Berger not only singles out pilot shortfalls, but also notes high costs of maintaining and flying the F-35B as factors he’s weighing “in reconciling the growing disparity between numbers of platforms and numbers of aircrew.”
The general has been very clear he does not expect his annual budgets to grow at any point in the near future, suggesting the best case scenario is that they remain flat as he wrestles with fleets of aging planes, helicopters and vehicles which grow increasingly costly to maintain.

The new document also makes it clear Berger has had enough of the service’s Abrams tanks, which were so effective in Iraq’s Anbar province, but offer little utility on small islands in the Pacific. A series of wargames conducted between 2018 and 2019 led the Corps to the conclusion that the tanks are “operationally unsuitable for our highest-priority challenges in the future,” the document states.

While questioning time-tested and iconic weapons like Abrams tanks, and the massive capabilities that the F-35 can bring, “they’re looking at the totality of the force” said Dakota Wood, senior research fellow for defense programs at The Heritage Foundation. “Berger has been very bold in saying we just can’t afford to have small batches of everything,” so he has set out on a path to bear down on what is most critical to fighting a war in the Pacific against a modern Chinese military.
The new force design is slated to phase in over the next decade, but the changes will be seen as early as the fiscal year 2022 budget, slated to drop next February.

That gives the Marines months to build their case for reimagining the force, which includes buying new capabilities like mobile rocket artillery and long-range fires while scrapping legacy platforms like heavy- and medium-helicopter squadrons and towed artillery. The plan also calls for eliminating law enforcement units, bridging companies, three infantry battalions, and anti-aircraft units.

General Dynamics, which makes the Abrams, and Lockheed Martin, which produces the F-35, will certainly have opinions on these moves, as will the other major prime contractors who build the helicopters and ground vehicles and artillery systems to be tossed over the side and the lawmakers who have plants in their states and districts.
“Resistance to change is likely to be strongest for programs that already exist and have stakeholders that support them,” RAND analyst Jonathan Wong wrote in a short essay, but the jury is out on how Congress and Defense Secretary Mark Esper will eventually weigh in on these issues.
It’s not just industry who will want in on these discussions, but policymakers in the Pentagon and lawmakers on the Hill, as well.
“There’s going to be a lot of pushback by people who aren’t up to speed on these current issues who are reaching back to their own previous references of 10, 20, 30, years ago,” Wood said. “Tanks are awesome in urban warfare environments, but if you haven’t thought about the operating environment the Marine Corps will encounter in the near future, these ideas might be difficult to understand.”
Berger appears to be keenly aware he needs to bring the rest of Washington along with him: “A certain degree of institutional change is inevitable when confronting modernization on this scale, and that type of change is hard.”
How hard will become clearer as Berger and his deputies get out there to evangelize for their vision of the future.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

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

Unread post29 Mar 2020, 15:37

The virus just fixed his pilot retention problem.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post29 Mar 2020, 16:36

I corrected it for you:
sunstersun wrote:Anyways, modern firepower is more than enough to knock out most entrenched enemy force on the ground that is out of supply/cut off.


Or resuming, "modern firepower" will always miss one of another entrenched enemy force on the ground (for several reasons but the most common would be because there will always be well hidden positions which won't be destroyed by "initial firepower" because they were not or could not be previously detected).
And it's against these remains/pockets of entrenched enemy forces on the ground that MBTs are the best/most usefull weapons system:
- MBTs can detect well hidden forces and/or sustain heavy enemy fire while staying relatively safe and as such save friendly lives.


sunstersun wrote:I'm not saying tanks are useless, but one reason they are useful now is the asymmetric aspects. If we're in a war against China, you blast anything that is military value even if there's civilians. It's like the whole reason it's hard to fight insurgents is because they blend with civs. In a pacific war it's blast anything that moves and that means tanks are too heavy to be useful. Gotta be light and maneuverable.


The problem with what you're saying above is that a conventional force can also fight as an unconventional/assymetrical force as well but with the diference that such force would be better armed/equipped and trained compared to a 'typical' unconventional/assymetrical force.

The Japanese did this against allies forces in the Pacific with considerable success.

sunstersun wrote:I think the marines got to invest in island defence capabilities. Just imagine if the marines at the start of the war could set up ship and air blockaids on uninhabited islands impromptu akin to Nimitz's Operation Starvation. It could win the Pacific War alone.


The problem with the above is that 'offence' will always have the initiative over 'defense'. This being said, a well equipped and motivated "offensive force" will always find a win to avoid or neutralize defensive capabilities (no matter how impressive they might be).
“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: 2714
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post29 Mar 2020, 16:43

milosh wrote:
MBT need hovercraft to reach shore that is big problem.


Sure but MBTs will be much more needed when the amphibious force is moving inland, this compared to the initial landing stage on the beach which can be well covered by aircraft like the F-35B or attack helicopters like the AH-1Z or better yet, just land on a beach which isn't protected by enemy forces.

Moreover, those hovercrafts are very fast and so they can land the MBTs on the beach quite fast/quickly.
“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: 6414
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post29 Mar 2020, 17:15

weasel1962 wrote:
ricnunes wrote: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).


Why waste men attacking the strongpoints? Chop off their logistical tail whilst pounding this from the air. That's the essence of the island hopping strategy in ww2.

Take out the air defences, then the b-52 carpet rolls in. 30-60 days later, the marines mop up what's left. Exception being Taiwan where civvies come into play.



Marine doctrine is maneuver warfare. The issue is any battle against near peer is going to be an exercise in combined arms. HIMARS like everything has its limits and as the USMC is going to this bizarro land where we are actually giving up different and varied capabilites to get fewer capabilities under the guise it makes us more lethal and flexible and somehow creates more capabilities I somehow must wake from this orwellian nightmare.

You actually need more and varied capabilities, not fewer. And this was actually emphasized at a few Marine symposiums.

It wouldn't be the first light infantry force to get smoked by something as small and pathetic as a lone or pair of enemy APCs-- thats happened. In the world of the blind the one eyed man is king, and it doesn't matter how high speed low drag your grunts are, Armor trumps flesh. Even the SEALs, and all those tier 1 wonders have been killed when something as simple as a truck mounted HMG shows up to the party. Its happened time and time again because the light and exposed rifle totters have to rely exclusively on air and arty to save them and it doesn't show its over. Its lead to many an unhappy ending and with forces far less readily equipped and educated as the Chinese.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6414
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post29 Mar 2020, 17:18

sunstersun wrote:History doesn't teach us everything. AI for example has no point of reference in history in modern warfare. Anyways, modern firepower is more than enough to knock out any entrenched enemy force on the ground that is out of supply/cut off.


no its not.

I'm not saying tanks are useless, but one reason they are useful now is the asymmetric aspects. If we're in a war against China, you blast anything that is military value even if there's civilians. It's like the whole reason it's hard to fight insurgents is because they blend with civs. In a pacific war it's blast anything that moves and that means tanks are too heavy to be useful. Gotta be light and maneuverable.


nope.

I think the marines got to invest in island defence capabilities. Just imagine if the marines at the start of the war could set up ship and air blockaids on uninhabited islands impromptu akin to Nimitz's Operation Starvation. It could win the Pacific War alone.


The United States Marines are now a defensive island garrison force?

milosh wrote:MBT need hovercraft to reach shore that is big problem.


not really no
Choose Crews
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

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

Unread post29 Mar 2020, 17:28

“The United States Marines are now a defensive island garrison force?“

Hmmm. How’d that work out for Japan back in the day?

:wink:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24508
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post29 Mar 2020, 17:59

Jeepers what does FightGlobular have agin the F-35B - a lot of nonsense it seems - classic negative sentences below &....
US Marine Corps backs away from tailor-made aircraft - and their expense
27 Mar 2020 UNK OPINION [is billybobboysweetiepie their ghostwriter?]

"After spending billions of dollars over decades to develop custom-made aircraft, the US Marine Corps (USMC) intends get rid of a large portion of its bespoke fleet.... It is, to paraphrase one of the Marine Corps’ most famous leaders, General O P Smith, not a retreat, they are simply attacking in a different direction....

...The F-35 became a jack of all trades, but master of none, and compromises to merge the three variants still plague the aircraft...." [then] …Of course, the capabilities offered by all the aircraft are second to none. But as in all walks of life, bespoke solutions are more costly than those available off the shelf...." [WTF?]

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/flight-int ... 39.article
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests